THE 
PSYCHOLOGY  OF  DRAWING 


Zbc  TSinivcxBitv  of  Cbicaao 


The  Psychology  of  Drawing 

With  Special  Reference  to 
Laboratory  Teaching 


A  DISSERTATION 

SUBMITTED  TO  THE   FACULTY    OF  THE    GRADUATE  SCHOOL 

OF   ARTS  AND  LITERATURE  IN  CANDIDACY  FOR  THE 

DEGREE   OF  DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY 

I  (DEP  VRTMENT  OF  EDUCATION) 


Fred  Carleton  Ayer 


A  Private  Edition 

Distributed  By 

The  University  of  Chicago  Libraries 


▲  Trade  Edition  Is  Published  By 

Warwick  &  York,  Inc. 
Baltimore.  Md. 
1916 


fiduc.  Jn-rt. 


COPYRIGHT  ip-i  6, 

BY 

WARWICK  &  YORK,  INC. 


THE    PSYCHOLOGY    OF 
DRAWING 

PREFACE 

This  book  represents  the  results  of  a  study  of 
drawing  as  a  device  in  laboratory  teaching  which 
has  included  a  survey  of  the  existing  literature  of 
the  psychology  of  drawing.  An  attempt  has  been 
made  to  characterize  the  chief  contributions  to  the 
psychology  of  drawing  and  to  organize  the  results 
of  the  important  studies  in  such  a  manner  as  to 
afford  students  of  the  various  aesthetic,  economic, 
and  scientific  aspects  of  drawing  a  scientific  point 
of  departure. 

It  is  with  great  pleasure  that  I  indicate  here  my 
sincere  appreciation  for  the  assistance  which  I 
have  received  from  teachers,  friends,  and  students. 
Among  many  deserving  ones  I  wish  to  mention 
in  particular  the  names  of  Dr.  Otis  W.  Caldwell, 
Professor  of  the  Teaching  of  Botany;  Walter  Sar- 
gent, Professor  of  Education  in  Relation  to  Fine 
and  Industrial  Arts;  and  Dr.  Charles  H.  Judd, 
Professor  and  Director  of  the  School  of  Education 
of  the  University  of  Chicago.  Professor  Cald- 
well has  given  me  great  practical  assistance  in  the 
setting  and  investigation  of  the  laboratory  prob- 


I  I    t*'   t»»   /»     M 


vi  PREFACE 

lem  involved  and  has  been  of  unfailing  help  and 
encouragement  throughout  the  study.  I  am  a 
heavy  debtor  to  Professor  Sargent  for  numerous 
critical  suggestions  in  the  analysis  of  drawing  and 
hearty  co-operation  in  a  number  of  experiments. 
Especial  acknowledgment  is  cheerfully  rendered  to 
Professor  Judd  whose  keen  criticism  of  the  con- 
tent and  form  of  this  production  has  removed 
many  errors  and  contributed  greatly  to  its  merit. 

Fred  Carleton  Ayer. 
University  of  Oregon, 
September  75,  191 5. 


CONTENTS 


PART  I.    THE  SCOPE  OF  THE  PROBLEM 
Chapter  I.    The  Problem  Page 

I.  Introduction I 

II.  The  General  and  Specific  Problems 2 

1.  Analytical  Observation 2 

2.  Laboratory  Records 2 

3.  Retention .' 3 

III.  Definitions 1 4 

1.  Analytical  Observation 5 

2.  Representative  Drawing 6 

3.  Analytical  Drawing 6 

4.  Memory  Drawing 8~ 

5.  Spontaneous  Drawing 8 

6.  Schema 8 

IV.  General  Procedure 9 

1.  Correlation 9 

2.  Memory  Tests 10 

3.  Introspection 10 

4.  General  and  Special  Ability fo 

5.  The  Effect  of  Analytical  Seeing  upon  Draw- 

ing   11 

PART  II.    SURVEY    OF    THE    LITERATURE    OF 
DRAWING. 

Chapter  II.     The  Methods  of  Research  and  Biblio- 
graphical Survey 

The  Methods  of  Research 15 

I.  The  Gross  Products  Method 16 

II.  The  Special  Products  Method 18 

III.  The  Comparative  Products  Method. .    33 

IV.  The  Biographical  Method 36 

V.  The  Experimental  Method 39 

vii 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  DRAWING 

Page 


Chapter  III.    Studies  in  the  Relation  of  Drawing 
the  Intellectual  Development 

!I.  Industrial  versus  Cultural  Values 49 

II.  Scientific  Values 55 
III.  Relation  of  Drawing  to  Special  and  General  Apti- 

X.               tudes 58 

Chapter  IV.    Studies  in  the  Analysis  of  the  Draw- 
ing Product 

I.  Gross  Products 67 

II.  Stages  in  the  Development  of  Drawing 73 

III.  Drawing  as  a  Form  of  Language 79 

Chapter  V.    Studies  in  the  Analysis  of  the  Draw- 
ing Act 

I.  Analysis  of  the  Act  of  Drawing  (Albien) 87 

II.  Perceptual  Development  (Judd  and  Cowling)..  . .  91 

III.  Drawing  Types  (Albien) 92 

IV.  Difficulties  of  Drawing  (Meumann) 97 

V.  Types  of  Retention  (Meumann) 100 

PART  III.    EXPERIMENTS    AND    CONCLUSIONS. 
Chapter  VI.    The  Experiments 

I.  Representative  Drawing,  Description,  and  Dia- 
grammatic Drawing 107 

1.  Problem 107 

/  2.  Method  of  Procedure 107 

I    3.  Methods  of  Scoring 114 

1  4.  Method  of  Determining  Correlation 121 

I               (1)  Correlation  by  the  Rank  Method.  . .  122 

(2)  Theory  of  Correlation 126 

5.  Results  and  Conclusions 129 

II.  Drawing  and  School  Grades 136 

1.  Problem 136 

2.  Materials 136 


CONTENTS  ix 

Page 

3.  Method  of  Procedure 136 

4.  Results 137 

5.  Special  Observations 139 

6.  Conclusion 140 

III.  Retention  and  the  Devices  Used  to  Secure  It 141 

1.  Problem 141 

2.  Method  of  Procedure,  Test  No.  1 141 

3.  Method  of  Scoring 142 

4.  Results  of  Test  No.  1 142 

5.  Conclusion 144 

6.  Method  of  Procedure,  Test  No.  2 144 

7.  Results  of  Test  No.  2 148 

8.  Conclusion 150 

IV.  Analysis  of  Observation  during  Representative 

Drawing  and  Description 151 

1.  Problem 151 

2.  Method  of  Procedure 151 

3.  Analysis  of  Description  and  Drawing 152 

V.  The  Effect  of  Analytical  Observation  upon  Draw- 
ing   154 

1.  Problem 154 

2.  Method  of  Procedure 154 

3.  Results 155 

4.  Conclusion 156 

Chapter  VII.    Final  Conclusions 

I.  The  Psychological  Analysis  of  Drawing 157 

1.  The  Preconceived  Purpose 157 

2.  The  Ability  to  See 158 

3.  Ability  to  Represent 158 

II.  Adaptation  of  Laboratory  Teaching 160 

III.  Analytical  Observation 162 

IV.  Laboratory  Records 165 

V.   Retention 166 

VI.   Recommendations 167 

Bibliography 169 


PART  I 
THE  SCOPE  OF  THE  PROBLEM 


THE    PSYCHOLOGY    OF    DRAWING 

WITH  SPECIAL  REFERENCE  TO 

LABORATORY  TEACHING 


Chapter  I 

THE  PROBLEM 

/.  Introduction. 

The  laboratory  method  has  come  to  be  prac- 
tically universal  in  the  teaching  of  science.  The 
process  of  drawing  is  everywhere  esteemed  as  a 
most  significant  form  of  laboratory  methodology. 
To  some  degree  in  the  physical  sciences,  but  more 
especially  in  the  biological  sciences,  the  amount  of 
time  devoted  to  making  pen  and  pencil  drawings 
is  a  major  part  of  the  laboratory  procedure.  Many 
pupils  encounter  great  difficulty  in  making  the 
required  drawings.  They  either  make  poor  draw- 
ings or  consume  a  disproportionate  amount  of 
time  in  the  effort  to  make  good  ones.  Because  of 
this,  many  receive  low  grades,  are  discouraged, 
and  discontinue  their  work  in  the  field  of  science. 
The  widespread  use  of  a  teaching  device  which 
consumes  extended  periods  of  time  in  all  cases, 
and  fails  to  meet  the  needs  of  individual  pupils 
in  many  cases,  raises  an  important  problem. 


*  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  DRAWING 

II.  The  General  and  Specific  Problems. 

Laboratory  work  brings  the  pupil  into  first-hand 
contact  with  the  objective  material  with  which 
its  particular  science  is  concerned.  The  chief  end 
of  laboratory  work  is  to  insure  a  better  under- 
standing and  a  more  permanent  retention  of  the 
material  concerned.  Omitting  personal  demon- 
stration and  instruction,  laboratory  procedure 
involves  the  following  factors: 

1.  Analytical  Observation.  The  pupil  is  given 
oral  or  written  directions  of  procedure  which  aim 
to  direct  his  attention  to  the  material  in  such  a 
way  that  he  will  master  it.  Three  special  devices 
are  used  to  promote  analytical  observation. 

(a)  Representative  Drawing.  The  student  is 
asked  to  reproduce  the  object  in  an  imitative 
drawing.  "Lay  the  locust  on  its  back.  Make 
a  careful  drawing,  lateral  view." 

(b)  Description.  The  student  is  asked  to 
describe  what  he  observes.  "What  is  the  shape 
of  the  head?"' 

(c)  Analytical  Drawing.  The  pupil  is  asked 
to  explain  in  a  schematic  drawing  some  par- 
ticular aspect  of  the  object.  "Make  a  dia- 
grammatic drawing  of  the  lily,  showing  the 
relative  position  of  the  pistil,  stamens,  petals, 
and  sepals." 

2.  Laboratory  Records.  A  second  factor  of 
laboratory   procedure    is    the    laboratory   record. 


THE  PROBLEM  3 

The  pupil  is  asked  to  keep  a  graphic  record  of  his 
work  which  permits  his  instructor  to  measure  his 
progress.  The  record  consists  of  one  or  more  of 
the  following  graphic  products: 

(a)  Representative  drawings. 

(b)  Descriptions. 

(c)  Analytical  drawings. 

3.  Retention.  A  third  factor  of  laboratory  pro- 
cedure is  concerned  with  subsequent  recall.  The 
results  of  laboratory  work  are  fixed  in  memory 
according  to  the  success  of  the  analytical  observa- 
tion and  the  reinforcement  given  by  the  making 
of  records. 

In  a  word,  laboratory  work  has  three  aims:  the 
observation  of  material,  the  making  of  records, 
and  the  retention  of  learning.  It  furthers  these 
aims  by  three  devices:  representative  drawing, 
description,  and  analytical  drawing.  Our  general 
problem  is  to  determine  the  character  of  the  various 
interrelations  of  the  factors  which  enter  into  labora- 
tory procedure. 

Current  practice  varies  as  to  the  method  of 
securing  analytical  observation  and  recording 
results.  Most  instructors  give  as  few  specific 
directions  as  practicable  so  that  the  student  may 
exercise  the  maximum  of  initiative.  The  process 
of  descriptive  explanation  or  that  of  drawing  is 
supposed  to  focus  the  attention  upon  the  salient 
characteristics  of  the  object  or  organism.     Many 


4  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  DRAWING 

teachers,  as  we  shall  show  presently,  believe  that 
this  is  one  of  the  particular  values  of  representative 
drawing.  Similarly,  in  the  recording  of  results, 
description  and  drawing  are  used  more  or  less 
interchangeably,  varying  according  to  the  labora- 
tory manual  used.  Drawing  almost  always  has 
an  important  place  in  the  records  and  in  some 
cases  is  used  exclusively.  Our  special  problem 
is  the  psychological  analysis  of  laboratory  drawing. 
Does    drawing    secure  analytical    observation? 

11s  drawing  a  reliable  record  of  the  pupil's  work? 
Does  drawing  promote  the  most  desirable  reten- 
tion? If  the  process  of  drawing  fails  in  any  or  all 
of  these  respects,  it  follows  directly  that  a  very 
conspicuous  amount  of  present-day  laboratory 
methodology  is  founded  upon  fallacious  principles 
and  is  in  need  of  radical  readjustment.  That  such 
is  the  case  is  the  conclusion  of  this  thesis,  and  it 
is  hoped  that  the  facts  emphasized  by  the  analysis 
of  previous  investigations  and  the  results  of  the 
present  experiments  will  lead  to  a  better  under- 
standing of  the  psychological  principles  involved 
in  drawing  as  well  as  materially  improve  present- 
day  methods  of  laboratory  teaching. 

III.  Definitions. 

At  this  point  it  will  be  well  to  define  several 
terms  which  appear  frequently  in  the  pages  to 
follow.     An  early  understanding  of  these  expres- 


THE  PROBLEM  5 

sions  will  aid  materially  in  following  the  thread  of 
the  succeeding  discourse. 

1.  Analytical  Observation.  Every  material  ob- 
ject or  process  has  a  number  of  characteristics 
which  may  be  grasped  in  consciousness  with  suf- 
ficient clearness  to  afford  a  basis  for  comparison 
and  analysis.  A  locust's  hind  legs  are  longer 
than  his  fore  legs;  a  pendulum  swings  repeatedly 
in  the  same  period  of  time.  Certain  character- 
istics, such  as  the  lengths  of  the  locust's  legs, 
are  noticed  because  of  difference;  other  charac- 
teristics, such  as  the  successive  swings  of  the 
pendulum,  are  compared  on  the  basis  of  similar- 
ity. In  either  case  the  observer  notices  the  sep- 
arate items  as  such  first  and  makes  the  compar- 
ison afterward.  "The  perception  of  sequence 
aids  us  in  the  perception  of  difference." 

What  an  individual  sees  in  an  object  depends 
upon  the  knowledge  he  brings  to  it.  But  it  is 
important  to  note  that  it  depends  upon  much 
more  than  that.  The  detail  of  observation  is 
determined  by  its  immediate  purpose.  If  we 
study  an  insect  with  the  preconceived  purpose  of 
painting  it,  immediately  we  begin  to  compare 
items  of  color  and  form.  The  entire  analysis  is 
concerned  with  these  things  and  no  other.  On 
the  other  hand,  if  we  approach  the  insect  with 
the  preconceived  purpose  of  discovering  how 
injurious  it  may  be  to  the  crops,  at  once  we  attend 


6  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  DRAWING 

to  the  comparative  structure  of  the  insect's  mouth- 
parts,  its  egg-laying  apparatus,  or  similar  ana- 
tomical features.  It  is  obvious  that  the  items  of 
analysis  must  be  related  to  the  problem  of  the 
particular  moment.  This  is  a  matter  of  great 
pedagogical  importance  to  laboratory  teaching, 
because  there  are  innumerable  characteristics 
attaching  to  any  object  or  process  which  are  not 
of  scientific  importance.  The  analysis  must  in- 
volve scientific  comparisons  and  not  those  of 
aesthetic,  moral,  or  other  interest. 

Our  particular  interest,  then,  in  "analytical 
observation"  is  the  interest  of  science,  and  as 
such  we  shall  use  the  expression  herein.  The 
method  of  its  attainment  is  one  of  our  major 
problems. 

2.  Representative  Drawing.  A  drawing  is  "repre- 
sentative" which  reproduces  as  accurately  as 
possible  the  exact  appearance  of  an  object.  The 
product  is  a  visual  imitation  of  the  original. 
Representative  drawing  may  refer  either  to  the 
process  or  to  the  product. 

3.  Analytical  Drawing.  When  imitation  is  not 
the  chief  end,  representation  in  drawing  may  be 
modified  in  various  ways.  This  begins  with  the 
omission  of  certain  details  of  surface  appearance. 
A  drawing  of  a  chair  does  not  show  the  grain  of 
the  wood.  Omission  continues  until  the  mere 
outline  of  the  object  completes  the  representation. 


THE  PROBLEM  7 

Whatever  is  shown  is  emphasized  at  the  expense 
of  the  characteristics  left  out. 

The  actual  appearance  of  the  object  is  altered 
in  a  second  type  of  modification.  This  is  well 
shown  in  the  illustrations  of  our  elementary  physi- 
ologies, where  the  structures  are  greatly  simplified 
in  the  drawings,  as,  for  example,  the  cross  section 
of  the  thorax. 

A  third  type  transcends  the  limits  of  perspective 
and  opacity.  The  drawing  shows  more  than  the 
eye  can  actually  see.  The  same  drawing,  for 
example,  shows  the  shoe,  the  foot,  and  the  bones 
of  the  foot.  This  is  sometimes  called  logical 
realism  as  distinguished  from  the  visual  realism 
of  representative  drawing. 

A  fourth  modification  of  the  representative 
drawing  is  the  type  or  symbolic  drawing.  This 
drawing  portrays  the  characteristic  features  only, 
which  a  number  of  objects  have  in  common.  It 
is  generic  rather  than  specific.  The  type  drawing 
of  a  bird,  for  example,  is  not  an  imitation  of  an 
actual  bird,  but  exhibits  such  features  as  feathers, 
beak,  wings,  etc.,  which  all  birds  have  in  common. 
The  perfect  type  drawing  shows  all  of  the  common 
features  of  the  group  represented.  As  its  symbol- 
ism becomes  more  and  more  pronounced,  it  loses 
in  visual  representation  until  but  one  pronounced 
characteristic  may  mark  the  type,  as  when  a 
single  feather  stands  for  bird. 


8  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  DRAWING 

It  must  not  be  supposed  that  these  four  primary 
modifications  of  drawing  are  entirely  distinct 
from  one  another.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  they  are 
closely  interrelated.  In  practice  the  schematic 
drawing  is  ordinarily  a  blend  of  two  or  more  of 
the  typical  modifications.  But  whatever  the  form 
of  the  modified  drawing,  a  preliminary  compari- 
son and  analysis  of  the  characteristics  which  are 
to  be  emphasized  in  the  drawing  is  necessary. 
The  analysis  may  result  in  no  more  than  the 
simple  diagram  of  the  hand,  or  it  may  lead  to  the 
synthesis  necessary  to  construct  a  drawing  which 
shows  the  basic  floral  plan  of  the  entire  rose  fam- 
ily. In  any  case  the  resultant  drawing  is  an  indi- 
cation of  preliminary  analysis  and  gives  rise  to 
the  name  "analytical  drawing,"  which  we  have 
chosen  and  will  use  in  this  sense. 

4.  Memory  Drawing.  This  expression  refers  to 
drawings  of  objects  or  scenes  from  the  memory  of 
one  or  more  previous  views. 

5.  Spontaneous  Drawing.  A  drawing  which  is 
made  voluntarily  by  a  child  from  memory  or  the 
imagination  without  previous  suggestion  of  a 
subject. 

6.  Schema.  This  term  refers  to  any  typical 
drawing  which  is  used  repeatedly  to  represent  the 
same  class  of  objects.  A  circle,  for  example,  with 
two  straight  lines  attached  below  is  frequently 
the  child's  first   "schema"   for  a  man.     At  the 


THE  PROBLEM  9 

other  end  of  the  scale  is  the  mass  of  detailed 
schemata  which  the  professional  drawer  ordinarily 
has  at  his  command,  enabling  him  to  make  an 
instant  memory  drawing  of  practically  any  com- 
mon form. 

IV.  General  Procedure. 

My  attention  was  called  to  the  problem  involved 
in  the  use  of  drawings  for  analytical  and  repre- 
sentative purposes  while  directing  the  laboratory 
drawing  of  various  students  in  biology  classes. 
The  frequently  observed  variations  in  drawing 
ability  among  students  otherwise  similarly  gifted, 
and  the  difficulties  with  drawing  experienced  by 
certain  pupils  who  were  excellent  in  grasping  scien- 
tific principles,  led  me  to  set  the  definite  problem 
of  measuring  the  correlation  between  drawing 
and  the  study  of  science.  In  this  I  have  utilized 
the  following  general  procedure.  (For  details 
and  results  of  these  tests,  see  later  chapters.) 

1.  Correlation.  Four  groups  of  subjects  were 
carefully  tested  with  unfamiliar  objects  as  to  their 
abilities  in  drawing,  description,  and  diagramming. 
The  members  of  each  group  were  then  ranked 
serially  in  the  order  of  the  merit  of  their  produc- 
tions by  a  group  of  judges.  The  amount  of  cor- 
relation existing  between  any  two  abilities,  such 
as  drawing  and  description,  was  then  established 
by  the  use  of  a  correlation  formula.  The  four 
groups  of  subjects  follow. 


io  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  DRAWING 

(a)  51  high  school  students  of  the  University 
of  Chicago  High  School,  examined  in  1912. 

(b)  48  graduate  students  in  the  School  of 
Education,  University  of  Chicago,  examined  in 
1912. 

(c)  50  college  students  of  the  University  of 
Oregon,  examined  in  191 3. 

(d)  61  college  students  of  the  University  of 
Oregon,  examined  in  19 13. 

2.  Memory  Tests.  After  the  students  in  groups 
(a),  (c),  and  (d),  above,  had  drawn  and  described 
various  objects,  they  were  examined  as  to  their 
memory  of  the  various  details.  Comparison 
between  the  effects  of  the  two  processes  was  then 
made,  either  by  the  process  of  serial  correlation 
or  on  a  percentage-of-error  basis. 

3.  Introspection.  Immediately  after  drawing 
and  describing  an  object,  group  (b),  above,  made 
an  introspective  analysis  of  the  two  processes 
involved.  This  has  been  supplemented  by  numer- 
ous tests  of  individuals  of  a  similar  nature  since 
1912. 

4.  General  and  Special  Ability.  In  1913  I  made 
an  investigation  of  the  correlation  between  ability 
in  drawing  and  aptitude  in  other  school  subjects 
on  the  basis  of  school  grades.  In  this  I  compared 
the  grades  of  the  51  University  High  School  stu- 
dents with  their  ranking  in  drawing  as  discovered 
in  the  special  tests.     In  addition  I  compared  the 


THE  PROBLEM  u 

grades  received  in  drawing  by  141  normal  school 
students  with  the  grades  received  in  all  other 
subjects. 

5.  The  Effect  of  Analytical  Seeing  upon  Draw- 
ing.  In  1 91 2  I  made  an  experimental  study  with 
16  subjects  who  were  students  in  the  University 
of  Chicago  School  of  Education.  Eight  of  the 
subjects  were  directed  to  consider  the  compari- 
son between  the  size  of  the  beak  and  of  the  foot 
of  a  bird.  The  other  eight  were  directed  to  study 
the  details  of  the  bird's  foot.  The  entire  group 
was  then  directed  to  make  an  accurate  repre- 
sentative drawing  of  the  bird,  which  was  placed 
in  full  view  of  all.  Comparative  measurements 
were  then  made  of  the  individual  drawings. 

In  addition  to  these  original  tests  I  have  had 
children  of  various  ages  and  a  number  of  adults 
make  drawings  to  exemplify  the  results  of  a  num- 
ber of  the  experiments  listed  in  the  following 
survey. 


PART  II 

SURVEY  OF  THE  LITERATURE  OF 
DRAWING 


Chapter  II 

THE  METHODS  OF  RESEARCH  AND  BIB- 
LIOGRAPHICAL SURVEY 

The  methods  of  research  which  have  been 
employed  in  the  analysis  of  the  activity  and  re- 
sults of  drawing  may  be  divided  into  two  general 
groups — the  objective  and  the  subjective.  The 
objective  methods  are  typical  of  investigations 
which  have  been  chiefly  concerned  with  the  study 
of  the  products  of  drawing.  The  subjective  meth- 
ods are  typical  of  the  researches  which  have  in- 
quired more  specifically  into  the  mental  or  formal 
phenomena  which  accompany  the  process  of  draw- 
ing. It  is  profitable  for  purposes  of  analysis  to 
subdivide  the  objective  and  subjective  methods 
into  a  number  of  subordinate  types  which  are 
characteristic  of  the  various  studies  of  the  psychol- 
ogy of  drawing  up  to  the  present  time. 

Objective  Methods 

i.  Gross  Products  Method.  In  which  the  inves- 
tigation has  to  do  with  relatively  indiscriminate 
collection  of  large  numbers  of  drawings. 

2.  Special  Products  Method.  In  which  the 
study  is  concerned  with  the  collection  of  drawings 
related  to  some  specific  theme,  such  as  the  illus- 
trations of  a  given  story. 

15 


16  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  DRAWING 

j.  Comparative  Products  Method.  In  which  the 
drawings  of  one  typical  group  of  individuals  are 
compared  to  the  drawings  of  a  second,  as  the 
drawings  of  children  with  those  of  savages. 

Subjective  Methods 

4.  Biographical  Method.  In  which  drawings  of 
the  same  individuals  are  collected  in  a  series  cover- 
ing an  extended  period  of  time  and  accompanied 
by  records  of  the  subjective  behavior. 

5.  Experimental  Method.  In  which  the  act  or 
process  of  drawing  is  analyzed  by  a  relatively 
definitely  controlled  experiment. 

The  five  types  of  research  indicated  above  will 
be  treated  in  greater  detail  in  the  following  sum- 
mary of  methods  and  related  bibliography. 

/.  The  Gross  Products  Method.1 

This  method  involves  the  gathering  of  a  great 
mass  of  objective  material  in  the  way  of  drawings 
collected  by  parents  or  teachers  who  are  not 
familiar  with  accurate  psychological  procedure. 
The  drawings  are  analyzed  with  reference  to 
whate\er  common  facts  may  appear.  The  gross 
products  method  has  a  serious  disadvantage  in 


1  Compare  "die  statistische  Methode"  of  Ruttmann  (87) 
and  "la  methode  de  collectionnement "  of  Rouma  (86). 
(Figures  in  parentheses  refer  to  the  number  of  the  citation 
as  listed  in  the  bibliography  at  the  close  of  this  work.) 


THE  METHODS  OF  RESEARCH  17 

that  the  more  essential  conditions  and  circum- 
stances attendant  upon  the  individual  drawing 
are  not  known  to  the  interpreter  of  the  accumulated 
results.  This  results  in  generalizations  upon 
seeming  similarities  which  are  in  reality  due  to 
different  causes.  There  are  also  dangers  due  to 
the  effects  of  influence  unknown  to  the  collector, 
such  as  advice  from  the  parent  or  imitation  of 
other  drawings. 

Investigations  of  this  type  were  very  popular  in 
the  United  States  during  the  last  decade  of  the 
nineteenth  century  and,  while  open  to  criticism, 
have  paved  the  way  for  more  accurate  conclu- 
sions as  the  conditions  of  the  drawing  have  been 
determined  with  greater  precision. 

From  the  historical  point  of  view,  one  of  the 
most  important  studies  of  this  type  is  that  made 
by  Carrado  Ricci1  of  Bologne,  Italy.  His  work 
created  widespread  interest  in  children's  draw- 
ings and  has  been  widely  quoted  by  subsequent 
writers.  Ricci's  material  included  100  drawings  by 
children  of  his  friends,  1 000  drawings  made  in 
the  common  schools  of  Bologne,  and  250  drawings 
from  the  schools  of  Modene,  together  with  the 
modelings  in  clay  by  20  children.  Ricci's  work 
discusses  a  number  of  phases  of  drawing  which 
have  been  studied  in  detail  by  subsequent  investi- 

1  Ricci,  L'Art  dei  Bambini,  1887.  (See  bibliography  for 
complete  titles.) 


18  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  DRAWING 

gators,  such  as  stages  in  the  evolution  of  drawing, 
the  child's  sense  of  beauty,  the  development  of 
the  sense  of  color,  and  the  art  of  primitive  races. 

Other  studies  of  this  type  are  those  of  Hall1, 
O'Shea,2  Maitland,3  Lukens,4  and  Barnes.5  Hall 
interpreted  a  number  of  drawings  of  children  as 
indicative  of  their  early  thinking.  O'Shea  made  a 
study  of  the  drawings  of  a  number  of  Wisconsin 
school  children  from  5  to  17  years  of  age.  Mrs. 
Maitland  made  an  analysis  of  1570  drawings  of 
California  children  from  5  to  17  years.  Lukens 
studied  the  drawings  of  1232  attempts  at  repre- 
sentation by  children  under  10  years.  Barnes 
interpreted  700  papers  by  girls  in  London  Board 
Schools  writing  under  the  direction:  "Describe 
the  prettiest  thing  you  have  ever  seen,  and  say 
why  you  thought  it  pretty." 

II.  The  Special  Products  Method.* 

With  the  establishment  of  more  definite  condi- 
tions as  to  the  incentive  for  drawing  and  the  com- 


1  Hall,  Contents  of  Children's  Minds  on  Entering  School, 
1892. 

2  O'Shea,  Children's  Expression  through  Drawing,  1894. 

8  Maitland,  What  Children  Draw  to  Please  Themselves, 
1895. 

4  Lukens,  A  Study  of  Children's  Drawings  in  the  Early- 
Years,  1896. 

5  Barnes,  The  Prettiest  Thing,  1902. 

6  Compare  "die  monographische  Methode"  of  Ruttmann 
and  "la  methode  des  enqueues"  of  Rouma. 


THE  METHODS  OF  RESEARCH  19 

position  of  the  group  of  drawers,  the  gross  pro- 
ducts method  passes  over  into  the  special  products 
method.  The  incentive  for  drawing  may  vary 
according  to  the  interest  of  the  investigator,  but 
it  always  centers  in  a  definite  problem.  For 
instance,  a  group  of  children  is  asked  to  illustrate 
a  story  which  has  just  been  read  to  them,  to  draw 
a  picture  of  a  house  from  memory,  or  to  represent 
some  object  presented  directly  to  them.  The 
homogeneity  of  the  group  is  definitely  restricted 
in  age,  training,  sex,  race,  etc.,  according  to  the 
purpose  of  the  study.  The  products  obtained 
permit  the  analysis  of  the  perceptual  and  pre- 
sentation side  of  drawing  to  a  certain  degree,  but 
the  emphasis  is  laid  upon  the  product  itself.  It 
is  not  essential  that  the  investigator  be  present  or 
that  a  record  be  kept  of  the  accompanying  sub- 
jective phenomena. 

The  majority  of  existing  researches  have  util- 
ized this  method  in  whole  or  in  part,  and  a  wealth 
of  material  has  been  collected.  The  chief  center 
of  activity  in  this  field  for  the  past  decade  has 
been  on  continental  Europe,  although  such  early 
American  works  as  those  of  Barnes  are  of  impor- 
tance in  this  field. 

The  work  of  Earl  Barnes1  is  one  of  the  earliest 
attempts  to  interpret  large  numbers  of  children's 
drawings  secured  upon  this  basis.     Barnes  made 


1  Barnes,  A  Study  of  Children's  Drawings,  1893. 


20  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  DRAWING 

use  of  an  English  version  of  the  poem  Hans  Guck- 
In-Die-Luft,  taken  from  Der  Struwwelpeter.  The 
poem  was  first  read  to  the  children;  they  were 
then  told  that  they  were  to  draw  one  or  more 
pictures  from  the  story.  The  story  was  read  the 
second  time  and  the  children  proceeded  to  draw. 
The  poem  follows: 

JOHNNY  HEAD-IN-THE-AIR 

As  he  trudged  along  to  school, 
It  was  always  Johnny's  rule 
To  be  looking  at  the  sky 
And  the  clouds  that  floated  by; 
But  just  what  before  him  lay, 
In  his  way, 

Johnny  never  thought  about; 
So  that  everyone  cried  out: 
"Look  at  little  Johnny  there, 
Little  Johnny  Look-In-The-Air." 

Running  just  in  Johnny's  way, 

Came  a  little  dog  one  day; 

Johnny's  eyes  were  still  astray 

Up  on  high,  in  the  sky; 

And  he  never  heard  them  cry: 

"Johnny,  mind  the  dog  is  nigh!" 

What  happens  now? 

Down  they  fell  with  such  a  thump, 

Dog  and  Johnny  in  a  lump! 

They  almost  broke  their  bones, 

So  hard  they  tumbled  on  the  stones. 


THE  METHODS  OF  RESEARCH  21 

Once  with  head  as  high  as  ever, 
Johnny  walked  beside  the  river. 
Johnny  watched  the  swallows  trying 
Which  was  cleverest  at  flying.     .     . 
Going  in  and  coming  out —     \ 
This  was  all  he  thought  about, 
So  he  strode  on — only  think! — 
To  the  river's  very  brink, 
Where  the  bank  was  high  and  steep, 
And  the  water  very  deep; 
And  the  fishes  in  a  row, 
Stared  to  see  him  coming  so. 

One  step  more!    Oh,  sad  to  tell! 
Headlong  in  poor  Johnny  fell. 
The  three  little  fishes  in  dismay. 
Wagg'd  their  heads  and  swam  away. 
There  lay  Johnny  on  his  face, 
With  his  nice  red  writing-case; 
But,  as  they  were  passing  by, 
Two  strong  men  had  heard  him  cry; 
And,  with  sticks,  these  two  strong  men 
Hook'd  poor  Johnny  out  again. 
Oh!  you  should  have  seen  him  shiver 
When  they  pulled  him  from  the  river. 
He  was  in  a  sorry  plight, 
Dripping  wet,  and  such  a  fright! 


22  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  DRAWING 

This  poem  presents  two  catastrophes  and,  in 
all,  nine  scenes  for  illustration.  The  aim  of  the 
research  was  to  determine  what  scenes  were  most 
often  drawn;  at  what  ages  the  greatest  number  of 
pictures  were  drawn;  differences  between  boys 
and  girls;  and  the  laws  governing  the  use  of  full 
face  and  profile.  In  all,  Barnes  collected  6393 
papers  (chiefly  from  California),  including  15,218 
pictures  from  children  about  equally  distributed 
among  the  ages  8  to  16.  S.  Partridge  in  England, 
and  Levinstein  and  Lamprecht  in  Germany,  have 
used  this  same  story  and  sheet  of  instructions. 

Clark1  made  use  of  some  700  drawings  of  chil- 
dren in  a  study  of  their  difficulties  with  perspective. 
The  first  group  of  drawings  collected  were  the 
products  of  the  attempts  of  children  to  draw  an 
apple  with  a  hat  pin  stuck  horizontally  through  it 
and  turned  at  an  angle  to  the  observer.  A  second 
group  consisted  of  the  representations  of  a  book 
lying  side  down  and  turned  at  an  angle  to  the 
observer. 

Lena  Partridge*  has  classified  the  drawings  of 
men  and  women  by  2000  English  children  from  3 
to  13  years  of  age.  Her  analysis  of  the  graphic 
products  is  made  for  various  ages  on  the  basis 
of   (1)   presence  of  certain  parts  of  the  human 


1  Clark,  The  Child's  Attitude  toward  Perspective  Prob- 
lems, 1897. 

a  Lena  Partridge,  Children's  Drawings  of  Men  and  Women, 
1900. 


THE  METHODS  OF  RESEARCH  23 

figure,  (2)  mode  of  representation  of  parts,  (3) 
direction  and  inclination  of  parts,  (4)  attention 
given  to  clothes,  and  (5)  sex  differences. 

Miss  Findley1  investigated  the  special  problem 
of  the  presence  of  artistic  taste  among  children. 

Among  the  studies  made  in  France,  Belgium, 
and  Switzerland  may  be  mentioned  those  of 
Passy,  Perez,  Schuyten,  Claparede  and  Geux, 
Ivanof,  and  Rouma.  Passy*  and  Perez*  employ 
the  method  of  direct  observation  of  a  number  of 
children  drawing  under  particular  assignments. 
The  results  of  their  observations  are  among  the 
earlier  publications.  Schuyten,4  beginning  in  1901, 
made  a  study  of  the  evolution  of  the  human  figure 
in  drawings  by  children  from  3  to  13,  using  for 
the  most  part  the  special  products  method.  He 
visited  unannounced  a  number  of  schools  at  ap- 
proximately the  same  time  of  day  and  requested 
the  children  to  draw  the  figure  of  a  man  as  they 
were  in  the  habit  of  doing.  The  children  were 
given  entire  freedom  in  their  procedure.  Schuyten 
obtained  20  series  of  drawings,  100  for  each  half- 
year  period  of  ages  running  from  3  to  13  years,  and 
divided  equally  among  boys  and  girls.  He  utilized 
the  materials  as  follows: 


1  Findley,  Design  in  the  Art  Training  of  Young  Children, 
1906. 

1  Passy,  Notes  sur  les  Dessins  des  Enfants,  1891. 

»  Perez,  L'Art  et  la  Poesie  chez  l'Enfant,  1888. 

4  Schuyten,  Het  oorspronkelijk  teekenen  als  bijdrage  tot 
kinderanalyse,  1901. 


24  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  DRAWING 

1.  By  a  lengthy  and  minute  analysis  of  the 
manner  in  which  the  various  parts,  head,  mouth, 
teeth,  etc.,  were  drawn,  he  established  a  quali- 
tative coefficient  of  the  degree  of  perfection  of 
each  group. 

2.  A  most  elaborate  quantitative  study  was 
made  by  exact  and  detailed  measurements  of  all 
anatomical  variations  in  the  head,  nose,  neck, 
trunk,  hands,  etc. 

3.  The  development  of  artistic  standards  was 
ascertained  by  a  comparison  with  classic  ideals. 

4.  After  many  attempts  the  endeavor  to  estab- 
lish types  for  the  human  figure  at  each  age  was 
abandoned. 

Probst,1  an  instructor  in  a  native  school  in 
Algiers,  tested  some  of  Levinstein's  conclusions* 
in  a  study  of  a  preparatory  class  of  53  Kabyle 
children  of  a  tribe  entirely  free  from  European 
mixture.  Probst  first  caused  them  to  draw  such 
pictures  as  they  desired  of  their  own  accord.  He 
then  compared  their  choice  of  subjects  with  that 
of  European  children.  In  a  second  experiment  he 
had  them  draw  from  memory  a  different  type  of 
object  on  each  school  day  for  four  successive 
weeks.  They  drew  one  or  more  men  on  Mon- 
days, a  quadruped  on  Tuesdays,  a  bird  on  Wed- 
nesdays, a  familiar  scene  on  Thursdays,  and  what- 


1  Probst,  Les  Dessins  des  Enfants  Kabyles,  1906. 
1  See  later. 


THE  METHODS  OF  RESEARCH  25 

ever  they  pleased  on  Fridays.     Probst's  conclu- 
sions are  not  in  accord  with  those  of  Levinstein. 

Claparede  and  Geux1  conducted  a  research  in 
1906  and  1907  in  connection  with  the  psycho- 
logical seminar  at  the  University  of  Geneva, 
which  resulted  in  the  collection  of  some  12,000 
drawings  from  3000  pupils.  A  questionnaire 
embracing  definite  instructions  for  procedure  was 
distributed  to  a  number  of  teachers.  Under 
similar  external  conditions,  pupils  were  directed: 

1.  To  make  a  representative  drawing  of  a  chair 
or  a  stool  placed  in  view  of  all. 

2.  To  draw  a  cat  from  memory. 

3.  To  illustrate  the  fable,  Le  Corbeau  it  U 
Renard. 

4.  To  draw  from  choice  whatever  and  however 
they  wished. 

Instructions  were  given  to  guard  against  copy- 
ing, communication,  and  fatigue.  All  of  the 
drawings  were  made  with  a  pencil  and  ordinarily 
lasted  five  minutes.  The  instructors  appended  to 
the  sheet  of  drawings  of  each  child  the  sex,  nation- 
ality, class,  rank  in  class,  general  ability,  subjects 
in  which  the  greatest  and  least  ability  was  shown, 
and  remarks  as  to  the  mental  type  or  additional 
peculiarities.  The  aim  of  the  research  was  to 
answer  a  two-fold  problem,    (1)   how  taste  and 


1  Claparede  and  Geux,  Plan  d'Experiences  Collectives  sur 
le  Dessin  des  Enfants,  1907. 


26  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  DRAWING 

aptitude  for  drawing  evolve,  and  (2)  what  corre- 
lation exists  between  aptitude  in  drawing  and 
aptitude  for  work  in  general.  The  latter  problem 
was  assigned  to  one  of  Claparede's  students,  E. 
Ivanof,1  who  made  a  careful  study  of  9764  draw- 
ings from  the  original  collection. 

Rouma,2  in  connection  with  various  classes  of 
subjects  in  Belgium  and  Switzerland,  has  made 
an  elaborate  series  of  studies  in  which  he  makes 
use  of  diverse  methods,  the  results  of  which  are 
published  in  his  book,  Le  Langage  Graphique  de 
V Enfant,  which  contains  one  of  the  clearest  treat- 
ments of  the  subject  available.  For  the  sake  of 
unity,  all  of  his  study  is  mentioned  here.  The 
chief  sources  of  Rouma's  materials  cover  a  period 
of  years,  as  follows: 

1.  From  October,  1900,  to  July,  1901,  he 
gave  two  hours  per  day  to  the  collection  of 
drawings  of  eight  children  of  rich  parents.  Part 
of  the  time  was  given  to  the  collection  of  spon- 
taneous drawings  with  the  accompanying  com- 
ments of  the  children,  and  part  to  the  drawing 
of  suggested  themes,  such  as:  When  I  was  a 
little  boy ;  The  trip  to  the  country ;  The  soldiers. 

2.  From  September,  1901,  to  July,  1905, 
Rouma  had  the  following  subjects  treated  by 
all  the  classes  in  a  school  for  retarded  children 
and  in  a  number  of  schools  for  normal  children. 


1  Ivanof,   Correlation  entre  l'Aptitude  au   Dessin   et   les 
autres  Aptitudes,  1908. 
8  Rouma,  La  Langage  Graphique  de  l'Enfant,  1913. 


THE  METHODS  OF  RESEARCH  27 

(a)  Man,  woman,  little  boy,  little  girl,  soldier, 

cavalier. 

(b)  The  family  house. 

(c)  A  man  walking  with  his  little  dog. 

(d)  A  lady  taking  her  baby  a  ride  in  a  baby 

carriage. 

(e)  Two    girls    playing    ball.     One    of    them 

throws  the  ball  through  the  window. 

It  is  broken. 
(0  A  thief  escapes  pursued  by  a  gendarme. 

The  thief  carries  a  hen  which  he  has 

stolen  under  his  arm. 
(g)  Saint-Nicolas, 
(h)  Subjects  from  choice. 

3.  From  September,  1901,  to  July,  1903, 
Rouma  met  a  class  of  40  pupils,  aged  6  to  8, 
regularly  one-half  hour  per  week.  The  mem- 
bers drew  alternately  from  free  choice  and  dic- 
tation. 

4.  From  September,  1904,  to  July,  1905, 
Rouma  collected  spontaneous  and  suggested 
drawings  from  a  class  of  thirty  backward  chil- 
dren, aged  9  to  11,  devoting  six  one-half-hour 
periods  to  this  task  per  week.  He  also  noted 
all  comments  which  accompanied  the  drawings 
of  certain  selected  pupils,  discovering  many 
factors  thereby  which  escaped  attention  other- 
wise. 

5.  From  September,  1905,  to  July,  1906, 
Rouma  made  a  study  of  twenty-six  abnormal 
children  in  a  special  class  in  Brussels.  The 
drawings  were  made  from  choice  and  by  way  of 
interpretation  of  a  given  subject.  The  develop- 
ment of  modeling  and  language  was  studied  at 
the  same  time.     Rouma  calls  attention  to  the 


28  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  DRAWING 

fact  that  the  slower  development  of  the  stages 
of  drawing  among  abnormal  children  makes 
possible  a  more  detailed  study  of  the  individual 
steps.  Paralleling  this  research,  Rouma  made 
a  study  of  the  drawings  of  the  pupils  of  a  Froe- 
belian  school  and  a  primary  school. 

6.  In  1908,  under  the  personal  supervision  of 
Rouma,  a  number  of  teachers  in  the  Froebelian 
schools  of  Charleroi  kept  a  record  of  the  spon- 
taneous drawings  and  accompanying  comments 
of  selected  pupils  in  their  classes. 

In  addition  to  the  above  mentioned  researches 
Rouma  made  studies  of  the  pupils  of  other  schools 
and  of  certain  normal  and  abnormal  children  not 
attending  school.  His  final  treatment  includes  a 
discussion  of  the  stages  of  evolution  in  drawing, 
the  various  characteristics  of  the  drawing-image, 
the  evolution  of  drawing  as  a  form  of  language, 
the  bearing  of  drawing  upon  intellectual  develop- 
ment and  attention,  modeling,  the  culture  of 
aptitude  in  drawing,  and  the  place  of  drawings  in 
the  interrelations  of  race  and  species. 

Among  the  leading  German  investigations  of 
the  special  products  type  are  those  of  Levinstein, 
Verworn,  Kerschensteiner,  Lamprecht,  Kik,  Wil- 
liam Stern,  Dfick,  and  Wagner.  The  works  of 
Levinstein  and  Verworn  extend  into  and  will  be 
described  under  the  comparative  products  method. 

Kerschensteiner1  made  a  monumental  research 


1  Kerschensteiner,    Die  Entwickelung    der   zeichnerischen 
Begabung,  1905. 


THE  METHODS  OF  RESEARCH  29 

in  the  interests  of  reforming  the  drawing  instruc- 
tion in  Munich.  He  aimed  to  discover  (a)  the 
entire  course  of  the  development  of  drawing  from 
the  first  schema  to  the  ultimate  representation  of 
space,  and  (b)  the  quality  of  representative  ex- 
pression attainable  by  children  6  to  14  years  of 
age.  In  1903  Kerschensteiner  obtained  96,000 
drawings  from  7000  children  of  the  Munich  schools, 
2500  of  whom  possessed  special  aptitude  in  draw- 
ing. The  children  were  asked  to  represent  as 
follows : 

Trial  1.     From    memory:     (a)    the    picture    of 

their  mother,  their  father,  their  own  picture; 

(b)  a  horse,  a  dog  and  a  cat,  a  bird;  (c)  an 

angel. 

After  nature:  z.  child  of  the  class. 
Trial  2.     From  memory:    (a)  a  flower,  a  tree; 

(b)  a  chair,  a  church,  a  tramway. 

After    nature:     a    chair,    a    violin,    a 

pitcher. 
Trial  3.     A  battle  in  the  snow. 

The  2,500  children  with  special  talent  in  draw- 
ing represented: 

(a)  a  man  carrying  a  beam;  (b)  a  woman  carry- 
ing a  water-cask;  (c)  a  building  of  the  vil- 
lage, after  nature. 

Kerschensteiner  obtained  the  record  of  each 
pupil's  age,  ability,  profession  of  parents,  if 
possessed  of  a  book  of  pictures,  and  if  accustomed 
to  draw  at  home.     He  concluded,  however,  that  a 


30  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  DRAWING 

large  number  of  the  drawings  had  been  subject  to 
outside  influence  and  instituted  another  series  of 
tests  in  1904,  including  in  addition  to  the  regular 
pupils  a  school  of  idiots  and  a  number  of  kinder- 
gartens. In  the  second  series  he  secured  100,000 
drawings. 

The  drawings  were  classified  according  to  a 
detailed  sheet  of  instructions  by  the  teachers. 
Kerschensteiner  had  all  pupils  showing  marked 
talent  draw  in  his  presence  afterward.  When  he 
was  assured  of  the  perfect  fairness  of  the  children's 
work,  he  began  to  collect  documents  which  would 
aid  in  explaining  this  exceptional  aptitude. 

In  a  third  series,  52,000  additional  drawings 
were  collected  which  had  been  used  in  the  orna- 
mentation of  a  book  and  a  plate.  Kerschen- 
steiner made  a  number  of  supplementary  tests  to 
clear  uncertain  points,  particularly  in  connection 
with  perspective.  The  drawing  instruction  in 
Munich  had  been  reorganized  on  the  basis  of  the 
results  of  this  research  and  Kerschensteiner's 
work  is  a  distinct  contribution  to  the  psychology 
and  pedagogy  of  drawing. 

Lamprecht,1  with  the  aim  of  contributing  to  the 
study  of  the  history  of  civilization,  beginning  in 
1904  at  the  University  of  Leipsig,  initiated  an 
international  research  upon  a  vast  scale.     Lam- 

1  Lamprecht,  Les  Dessins  d'Enfants  comme  Source  His- 
torique,  1906. 


THE  METHODS  OF  RESEARCH  31 

precht  sent  a  sheet  of  detailed  instructions  to 
various  countries,  involving  the  collection  of  the 
following  types  of  drawings: 

1.  Spontaneous  drawings  of  children  who 
have  not  been  influenced  by  suggestion  or 
training. 

2.  Specified  representative  drawings  of: 

(a)  objects  isolated  in  space,  as  a  dog,  table, 
flower,  etc. 

(b)  illustrated  incidents,  stories,  etc. 

3.  Series  of  drawings  from  the  same  child. 

4.  Drawings  of  adults,  particularly  those 
with  non-professional  occupations. 

For  comparative  purposes  a  large  number  of 
drawings  were  secured  from  the  poem  Hans 
Guck-In-Die-Luft,  using  the  Barnes  method.  In 
addition  data  were  collected  as  to  the  age,  train- 
ing, intelligence,  and  social  position  of  the  various 
subjects.  A  vast  number  of  drawings  were  se- 
cured from  Belgium,  Sweden,  Italy,  England, 
Russia,  Japan,  America,  India,  and  Africa,  all  of 
which  have  been  classified  and  filed  in  the  museum 
of  the  "Seminar  for  Culture  and  Universal  His- 
tory" at  Leipsig.  Levinstein  (61)  (see  bibli- 
ography), Kohler  (58),  and  Kretzschmar  (59) 
have  made  researches  in  connection  with  the 
classification  and  interpretation  of  this  vast  body 
of  material 

Kik1  made  a  study  of  thirteen  drawers  of  mark- 

1  Kik,  Die  Qberaormale  Zeichenbegabung  bei  Kindern, 
1908. 


32  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  DRAWING 

edly  exceptional  ability,  part  of  the  subjects 
working  in  his  presence.  He  gave  particular  at- 
tention to  environmental  influences  and  the  rela- 
tion between  drawing  aptitude  and  intelligence. 

William  Stern,1  beginning  in  1905,  directed  an 
inquiry  at  Breslau  embracing  the  drawings  of 
1500  pupils,  aged  6  to  18,  from  the  primary, 
middle,  and  high  schools.  The  pupils  endeavored 
to  interpret  a  poem  of  some  fifty  verses  which 
had  been  read  to  them.  The  resultant  drawings 
were  analyzed  as  to  (1)  individual  differences,  (2) 
progress  with  age,  (3)  representation  of  space,  (4) 
the  problem  of  time,  and  (5)  differences  in  sex. 

Wagner2  interpreted  the  foregoing  material, 
classifying  the  possible  motives  of  the  drawings, 
giving  percentages  of  frequency!  for  representation 
of  movement,  human  figure,  indications  of  humor, 
etc.,  and  characterizing  the  developmental  stages 
of  drawing. 

Duck3  made  a  special  study  of  the  interests  of 
children  in  drawing  and  art,  noting  particularly 
the  changes  of  interest  at  the  time  of  puberty. 


1  Stern,  Spezielle  Beschreibung  der  Ausstellung  freier 
Kinderzeichnungen  aus  Breslau,  1906. 

s  Wagner,  Das  frie  Zeichnen  von  Volksschulkindern,  1913. 

3  Duck,  Uber  das  zeichnerische  und  kiinstlerische  Interesse 
der  Schiiler,  1913. 


THE  METHODS  OF  RESEARCH  33 

III.  The  Comparative  Products  Method.1 

The  comparative  products  method  arises  out  of 
various  combinations  of  the  gross  and  special 
products  methods.  Drawings  which  have  been 
obtained  from  one  group  of  individuals  are  com- 
pared to  the  products  of  some  other  group.  The 
drawings  are  taken  to  be  significant  of  certain 
psychological  traits  of  the  groups  concerned.  It 
is  hoped  to  reveal  the  relations  existing  between 
the  respective  groups  by  means  of  a  study  of  the 
similarities  in  the  drawing  products.  In  this  way 
advantage  is  taken  of  groups  of  drawings  already 
carefully  organized,  such  as  may  be  found  in 
many  ethnological  studies. 

There  is  no  question  that  drawings  may  be 
utilized  to  reveal  certain  mental  characteristics 
and  thus  prove  valuable  for  comparative  pur- 
poses. The  validity  of  comparative  generaliza- 
tions, however,  naturally  depends  upon  the  or- 
iginal method  of  obtaining  the  drawings.  In 
view  of  this  fact,  considerable  caution  must  be 
used  in  dealing  with  "gross  products"  drawings. 

The  comparative  products  method  has  been 
made  use  of  by  many  investigators  to  enlarge  the 
scope  of  their  original  researches.  The  most 
common  contrast  is  the  one  made  between  a  series 
of  drawings  of  normal  children  with  those  of  some 


1  Includes  Ruttmann's  "die  ethnologische  Methode.' 


34  TME  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  DRAWING 

other  homogeneous  group.  In  this  manner  the 
drawings  of  normal  children  have  been  compared 
with  (i)  the  drawings  of  savages,  (2)  the  drawings 
of  prehistoric  peoples,  (3)  the  drawings  of  the 
pathologically  degenerate,  (4)  the  drawings  of 
children  of  other  races,  (5)  the  drawings  of  illit- 
erate adults,  and  (6)  the  art  products  of  earlier 
periods  of  civilization.  In  addition  numerous 
studies  have  considered  the  parallels  existing 
between  the  sexes,  between  general  ability  and 
drawing  aptitude,  and  between  drawing  and 
other  types  of  expression,  such  as  modeling,  writ- 
ing, and  language.  In  making  comparisons  with 
the  drawings  of  savages  and  prehistoric  peoples, 
advantage  is  frequently  taken  of  the  materials 
collected  and  organized  in  such  excellent  studies 
as  those  of  Danzel,1  Haddon,2  Koch-Grunberg,8 
Grosse,4  Verworn,5  Wilson,8  and  in  the  Annual 
Reports  of  the  United  States  Bureau  of  Ethnology. 
The  researches  of  Schuyten,  Probst,  Ivanof, 
Lamprecht,  Stern,  and  Kik,  which  utilize  the 
comparative  method  in  part,  have  already  been 
mentioned.     Levinstein7     utilized    the    drawings 

1  Danzel,  Die  Anfange  der  Schrift,  1912. 

■Haddon,  Evolution  in  Art,  19 14. 

8  Koch-Grunberg,  Anfange  der  Kunst  im  Urwald,  1906. 

4  Grosse,  The  Beginnings  of  Art,  1897. 

5  Verworn,  Zur  Psychologie  der  primitive  Kunst,  1908. 
8  Wilson,  Prehistoric  Art,  1896. 

7  Levinstein,   Kinderzeichnungen   mit   Parallelen  aus    der 
Urgeschichte,  Kulturegeschichte  und  Volkerkunde,  1905. 


THE  METHODS  OF  RESEARCH  35 

collected  by  Lamprecht  in  a  study  of  the  compar- 
ative type.  Three  of  the  eight  chapters  of  his 
interesting  book  are  given  to  a  discussion  of  these 
parallels.  Levinstein  also  treats  in  considerable 
detail  the  general  question  of  children's  drawings 
and  appends  an  extensive  bibliography  in  his 
publication.  Gennep1  has  elaborated  a  special 
treatment  of  this  type,  and  similar  discussions  may 
be  found  in  Chamberlain,1  Sully,1  Wundt,4  and 
Meumann.8 

Max  Verworn6  began  a  study  of  the  relation- 
ships existing  between  the  drawings  of  children 
and  primitive  peoples  in  1906.  Verworn  col- 
lected the  drawings  of  a  large  number  of  rustic 
children,  aged  6  to  14,  believing  that  their  environ- 
ment made  something  of  an  approach  to  that  of 
the  primitive.  The  children  drew  from  memory 
such  familiar  forms  as  a  goat,  cow,  horse,  sun, 
moon,  man,  and  woman.  In  a  second  study  Ver- 
worn had  children  copy  drawings  of  the  paleolithic 
age  which  represented  reindeer  and  mammoths. 
Then  followed  a  series  of  drawings  in  which  the 

1  Gennep,  Dessins  d'Enfant  et  Dessins  Prehistorique, 
1911. 

•Chamberlain,  The  Child,  a  Study  in  the  Evolution  of 
Man,  1900. 

'  Sully,  Studies  of  Childhood,  1895. 

4  Wundt,  Vdlkerpsychologie,  1900-09. 

•  Meumann,  Experimentelle  Pac*agogik,  1914. 

•  Verworn,  Zur  Psychologie  der  primitiven  Kunst,  1908. 


36  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OP  DRAWING 

children  each  time  drew  their  previous  drawing. 
Verworn  sought  by  this  parallel  to  clarify  certain 
points  in  the  serial  development  of  primitive 
drawings. 

Lobsien1  repeated  Schuyten's  experiment  to 
discover  if  a  parallel  existed  between  advance  in 
age  and  an  approach  to  the  canons  of  art.  He 
discards  Schuyten's  detailed  measurements  and 
selects  the  best  and  poorest  drawers  of  ages  8,  n, 
13,  and  14.  His  conclusions  vary  somewhat  from 
those  of  Schuyten. 

The  researches  of  Rouma  and  Levinstein  in  the 
field  of  the  drawings  of  abnormal  children  have 
been  mentioned.  Rudolf  Lindner8  compared  the 
drawings  of  deaf  and  dumb  children  with  those  of 
normal  children  by  having  the  pupils  of  the  Leip- 
sig  Deaf  and  Dumb  Institute  follow  Kerschen- 
steiner's  directions  for  drawing  a  tramcar  from 
memory. 

IV.     The  Biographical  Method.* 

This  method  endeavors  to  obtain  all  of  the  facts 
connected  with  an  extended  series  of  drawings  by 
individual  children.  The  observer  is  familiar 
with   psychological   methods   and   keeps   detailed 


1  Lobsien,  Kinderzeichnung  und  Kunstkanon,  1905. 

2  Referred  to  by   Meumann,   Experimentelle   Padagogik, 
Bd.  Ill,  p.  758. 

3  Compare  Luquet's  "methode  microscopique." 


THE  METHODS  OF  RESEARCH  37 

records  of  the  subjective  phenomena  accompany- 
ing the  drawings  of  the  same  child  for  a  period  of 
several  years.  For  the  most  part  this  method  has 
been  used  in  studying  the  spontaneous  drawings  of 
children  prior  to  the  influence  of  special  instruc- 
tion. More  recently  this  has  been  varied  by  the 
introduction  of  special  themes  for  interpretation 
or  has  been  extended  into  the  school  period.  The 
biographical  method  is  practically  free  from  the 
sources  of  error  common  to  the  exclusively  ob- 
jective methods  and,  in  connection  with  other 
methods,  offers  a  most  fertile  field  for  investiga- 
tion. Many  excellent  researches  have  been  made 
with  biographical  material. 

An  early  study  of  this  type  was  made  under  the 
direction  of  Elmer  E.  Brown,1  who  interpreted  four 
extended  studies  of  the  drawings  of  individual 
children  Miss  M.  V.  Shinn  followed  the  drawings 
of  a  child  from  the  27th  to  the  64th  month,  Cath- 
erine W.  Slack  watched  a  second  child  from  the 
36th  to  the  60th  month,  Eleanor  G.  Sharp  studied 
a  third  child  from  the  28th  to  the  60th  month, 
and  Lulu  M.  Chapman,  a  fourth  child  from  the 
32d  to  the  48th  month.  Brown  collected  data  on 
the  development  of  each  child  from  the  following 
points  of  view:  (1)  circumstances  at  the  begin- 
ning of  drawing,  (2)  degree  of  representation, 
beauty,  and  symmetry  in  the  drawing,   (3)  first 

1  Brown,  Notes  on  Children's  Drawings,  1897. 


38  T#£  PSYCHOLOGY  OP  DRAWING 

attempts  at  copy  drawing,  (4)  child's  attitude  to- 
ward drawing,  (5)  symbolism,  (6)  conventional- 
ism, (7)  size,  direction,  and  form  of  outlines,  and 
(8)  changing  interests  in  form  and  color. 

Louise  Hogan1  made  an  extended  bibliograph- 
ical study  of  the  drawings  of  a  child  up  to  the  age 
of  eight,  treating  both  spontaneous  and  suggested 
drawings.  Lukens2  followed  the  drawings  of  a 
little  girl  from  the  27th  to  the  56th  month.  His 
treatment  contains  a  very  good  summary  of 
studies  of  children's  drawings  up  to  that  time. 

C.  and  W.  Stern3  traced  the  developmental 
stages  in  drawing  by  the  study  of  the  early  draw- 
ing periods  and  artistic  interests  of  a  little  boy. 
Luquet,4  using  what  he  terms  the  "m£thode 
microscopique,"  has  made  the  most  elaborately 
detailed  study  of  the  biographical  type  up  to  the 
present  time.  His  book  of  262  pages  and  150 
plates  of  drawings  contains  a  very  complete  analyt- 
ical account  of  the  development  of  the  drawings  of 
the  little  girl,  Simonne  Luquet,  from  a  little  over 
three  years  of  age  to  nearly  nine.  Luquet  col- 
lected a  series  of  over  1700  drawings  with  the 
accompanying    comments    and    made    a    careful 

1  Hogan,  A  Study  of  a  Child,  1898. 

'Lukens,  A  Study  of  Children's  Drawings  in  the  Early 
Years,  1896. 

'  C.  and  W.  Stern,  Die  zeichnerische  Entwickelung  eines 
Knaben,  1909. 

4  Luquet,  Les  Dessins  d'un  Enfant,  1913. 


THE  METHODS  OF  RESEARCH  39 

record  of  all  subjective  conditions.  Other  re- 
searches involving  the  biographical  method  have 
been  made  by  Baldwin,1  Moore,1  Preyer,'  Sully,* 
and  others. 

V.  The  Experimental  Method. 

The  experimental  method  attempts  to  analyze 
the  process  of  drawing  by  setting  up  a  definite 
and  precise  control  of  the  drawing  act  which  takes 
into  account  the  subjective  as  well  as  the  objective 
aspects  of  drawing.  It  attempts  to  measure  the 
response  of  individual  drawers  to  known  and  con- 
trollable conditions.  As  distinguished  from  ob- 
jective methods,  very  careful  attention  is  given  to 
the  inner  mental  conditions  of  the  individual  sub- 
jects. The  attempt  is  made  to  determine  indi- 
vidual variations  in  such  subjective  factors  as  per- 
ception, type  of  imagery,  memory,  endowment, 
and  training.  In  general,  the  problem  is  to  reduce 
the  drawing  process  to  its  elements  for  purposes 
of  ultimate  analysis  of  the  ordinarily  synthesized 
activity  by  the  employment  of  the  methods  of 
experimental  psychology. 

In  the  majority  of  existing  researches  the  meth- 
ods of  control  have  been  but  partial  at  best,  but, 

1  Baldwin,   Mental   Development  in  the   Child  and   the 
Race,  1897. 
*  Moore,  The  Mental  Development  of  a  Child,  1896. 
»  Preyer,  The  Mind  of  the  Child,  1899. 
4  Sully,  Studies  of  Childhood,  1895. 


40  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  DRAWING 

as  a  whole,  the  results  obtained  by  the  experimental 
method  are  of  the  greatest  significance  both  to  the 
psychology  and  the  pedagogy  of  drawing.  The 
chief  researches  follow. 

Judd  and  Cowling1  made  an  experimental 
analysis  of  the  various  elements  which  enter  into 
the  process  of  the  visual  perception  of  a  simple 
figure.  A  small  linear  figure  composed  of  four 
straight  and  three  curved  lines  was  exposed  to 
the  view  of  a  number  of  subjects  for  a  period  of 
ten  seconds.  The  subjects  immediately  after- 
ward attempted  to  reproduce  the  figure  in  a  draw- 
ing. The  figure  was  then  exposed  again  and  a 
second  drawing  attempted.  This  process  was 
repeated  until  the  subject  had  attained  an  ap- 
proximately correct,  percept  of  the  figure.  By  a 
comparison  of  the  objective  results  with  the  intro- 
spections of  the  various  subjects,  the  investigators 
were  enabled  to  trace  the  development  of  the  per- 
ceptual process  and  the  ability  to  reproduce  the 
figure  graphically. 

Katz2  studied  the  individual  differences  in  repre- 
sentative drawing  among  children  by  having  three 
girls  of  5,  6,  and  7  years  draw  in  succession  with 
ruler  and  pencil  the  following  models  made  out  of 
blue  pasteboard:    (i)  triangle,   (2)  quadrate,   (3) 

1Judd  and  Cowling,  Studies  in  Perceptual  Development, 
1897. 

2  Katz,  Ein  Beitrag  zur  Kenntnis  der  Kinderzeichnungen, 
1906. 


THE  METHODS  OF  RESEARCH  41 

parallelogram,  (4)  ellipse,  (5)  circle,  (6)  cube,  (7) 
flat  quadrate  with  four  supports  in  the  form  of  a 
four-legged  table,  (8)  three-sided  pyramid,  (9) 
regular  tri-lateral.  In  a  second  series  of  drawings 
Katz  investigated  the  elements  of  the  perceptual 
process  and  attention  which  gave  rise  to  the 
peculiar  characteristics  of  individual  drawings. 

Albien1  has  contributed  an  elaborate  experi- 
mental study  concerning  the  elements  entering 
into  the  drawing  act  which  is  of  first  importance 
to  the  psychology  and  pedagogy  of  drawing.  The 
experiments  were  carried  on  with  individual 
pupils  in  Albien 's  home.  The  first  was  conducted 
by  Meumann.  The  others  were  taken  up  during 
a  period  of  about  eight  weeks,  during  which  Albien 
tested  from  two  to  four  pupils  daily.  The  process 
of  representative  drawing  from  copy  was  taken  to 
consist  of  two  major  processes:  (1)  the  optical- 
perceptional  part,  and  (2)  the  graphical-reproduc- 
tive part,  involving  the  representation  of  the 
previously  apprehended  and  assimilated  optical 
images.  Each  of  these  major  processes  was  taken 
to  consist  of  a  number  of  subordinate  elemental 
part-processes.     (See  discussion  later.) 

The  aim  of  Albien's  research  was  to  set  up  an 
experiment  which  would  isolate  the  various  part- 
processes  of  the  drawing  act.     To  this  end  figures 

1  Albien,  Der  Anteil  der  Nachkonstruierenden  Tatigkeit 
des  Auges  und  der  Apperception  an  dem  Behalten  und  der 
Wiedergabe  einfacher  Formen,  1907. 


42  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  DRAWING 

were  selected  for  "copy"  which  provided  for  the 
following  considerations : 

1.  The  resemblance  of  the  "copy"  to  known 
figures  was  controlled  so  as  to  reduce  the  play 
of  memory  to  a  definite  minimum.  Three 
figures  were  selected  for  copy;  the  first  being 
practically  foreign  to  the  previous  experience  of 
the  subjects,  the  second  resembling  the  contour 
of  known  forms,  and  the  third  of  medium  dif- 
ficulty. 

2.  The  constructive  activity  of  the  eye  and 
hand  movements  and  of  the  apperceptive  pro- 
cesses was  controlled  by  artificial  interruption. 
Eye  movements  were  excluded,  when  desirable, 
by  means  of  a  definite  fixation  point  marked  on 
the  copy.  The  involuntary  drawing  move- 
ments of  the  hand  during  preliminary  percep- 
tion were  excluded  by  rhythmic  movements  of 
the  hands. 

3.  An  attempt  to  exclude  the  will  during 
perception  was  made  by  asking  the  pupils  not 
to  think  about  drawing  the  object  during  the 
process  of  fixation. 

The  experiment  as  a  whole  was  carried  on  in 
three  chief  parts. 

Part  I.    Drawing  After  Fixating  Seeing  (Zeichnen 
nach  fixierenden  Sehen) . 

In  this  part  of  the  experiment  each  of  the  three 
types  of  copy  was  exposed  by  means  of  a  tachisto- 
scope  for  a  period^of  ten  seconds  (repeated  when 
desirable),  during  fcwhich  time  the  eye  was  kept 


THE  METHODS  OF  RESEARCH  43 

fixed  upon  the  fixation  mark  near  the  center  of 
the  figure,  all  of  the  figure,  however,  lying  within 
the  field  of  the  subject's  vision.  The  subject  then 
attempted  to  reproduce  the  image  of  the  copy  by 
drawing  it.     The  subject  was  then  asked: 

"Do  you  consider  the  drawing  to  be  correct?" 
"Can   you   tell   what   is   wrong?     Where   is 
anything  lacking?" 

"What  is  the  cause  of  it?  Is  it  that  you  can- 
not see  accurately  and  cannot  draw  satisfac- 
torily?" 

Part  II.  Drawing  from  Memory  (Nach  der  Vor- 
stellung  aus  dem  Geddchtnis). 
Each  subject  was  permitted  to  observe  the  copy 
until  he  thought  he  could  draw  it  from  memory. 
The  drawing  was  then  executed.  The  time  of 
the  observation  and  execution  was  recorded  and 
the  following  questions  asked: 

"Is  the  drawing  difficult?  Why?  or,  What 
is  the  cause?" 

"  Upon  what  do  you  depend  in  memory  draw- 
ing?" Other  questions  are  supplemented  ac- 
cording to  individual  needs. 

Part  III.  Representative  Drawing  from  Copy 
(Abzeichnen  der  Vorlage). 
In  conclusion  each  figure  was  drawn  with  the 
copy  in  view.  The  time  of  drawing  was  recorded. 
All  subjective  manifestations  were  recorded 
throughout  the  entire  experiment. 


44  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  DRAWING 

The  subjects  for  the  experiment  were  selected  by 
Albien  from  a  local  real-school  and  included  classes 
Sexta  to  Untersekunda,  with  the  following  age 
distribution : 


Sexta 

9  sub 

jects    9-10  years 

Quinta 

9 

11-12      " 

Quarta 

10 

44        13-14     " 

Tertia 

9 

"        15-16     " 

Untersekun 

ida    8 

17-18     " 

The  pupils  in  the  Sexta  had  had  no  lessons  in 
drawing.  The  others  had  received  two  hours  per 
week  in  freehand  drawing.  From  the  original 
classes,  containing  about  fifty  pupils  each,  Albien 
selected  one  good,  one  medium,  and  one  poor 
drawer  with  good  general  intelligence,  and  one 
good,  one  medium,  and  one  poor  drawer  with  poor 
general  intelligence.  In  conclusion  Albien  ana- 
lyzed the  various  types  of  drawers  and  the  effects  of 
endowment,  perserveration,  the  feelings,  and  re- 
flection, upon  drawing. 

Stiehler1  made  an  instructive  experiment  to 
determine  the  relation  between  construction  and 
drawing,  with  the  particular  aim  of  distinguishing 
between  the  physical  concept  and  the  drawing 
concept  attaching  to  the  same  object.  The  experi- 
ment, having  eighteen  children  as  subjects,  was 
conducted  in  two  parts. 


1  Stiehler,    Beitrage   zur   Psychologie    und   Methodik   des 
Zeichenunterrichts,  1913. 


THE  METHODS  OF  RESEARCH  45 

1.  Each  child  placed  a  match-box  at  a  dis- 
tance of  about  60  cm.  in  such  a  manner  that  it 
stood  obliquely  and  lower  than  the  eyes.  The 
children  were  admonished  to  note  the  number 
of  surfaces,  their  arrangement,  size,  and  form; 
and  at  the  same  time,  however,  they  were  not 
to  turn  their  heads  in  order  that  the  perception 
might  always  occur  from  the  same  visual  angle. 
Nothing  was  said  with  regard  to  perspective 
phenomena,  foreshortening  of  size,  and  shifts 
in  form.  After  observation  and  general  delib- 
eration, the  box  was  set  aside.  It  was  then 
drawn  from  memory. 

2.  The  match-boxes  were  then  touched, 
rubbed,  pressed,  relaxed,  turned;  there  was 
counting,  measuring  with  strips  of  paper,  com- 
parison; first  with  the  eyes  closed,  then  open. 
The  representation  was  then  made  from  memory. 

The  results  of  these  two  tests  were  interpreted 
in  light  of  the  accompanying  remarks  of  the  sub- 
jects. 

Peter1  has  recently  experimented  with  an  analysis 
of  the  elements  attached  to  the  mastery  of  the 
perspective  relationships  in  drawing  objects  which 
are  situated  back  of  other  objects.  Peter  required 
the  pupils  to  draw  a  scene  viewed  through  an  inter- 
vening window. 

Beside  the  part  played  in  Albien's  experiments, 
Meumann*  records  in  his  treatment  of  The  Ana- 


1  Peter,  Beitrage  der  Analyse  der  zeichnerische  Begabung, 

1914. 

5  Meumann,  Vorlesungen  zur  EinfUhrung  in  die  Experi- 
mentelle  Padagogik,  19 14. 


46  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  DRAWING 

lysis  of  Drawing  two  further  experiments  worthy 
of  note  here.  In  the  first  series  Meumann  had  a 
group  of  subjects  draw  from  memory  a  number  of 
familiar  objects.  Certain  of  the  subjects  were 
then  directed  to  describe  the  objects  from  memory, 
or,  failing  in  this,  to  describe  the  objects  when 
pictures  of  them  were  placed  before  them.  Various 
individuals  were  questioned  as  to  their  difficulties 
in  drawing  from  memory.  In  addition,  individual 
hand  dexterity  was  studied  and  a  comparison  was 
made  of  the  memory  (auswendig)  drawings  follow- 
ing short  and  long  exposure. 

In  a  second  series  of  experiments  directed  by 
Meumann,  an  attempt  was  made  to  classify  the 
types  of  drawing  retention  and  the  elemental 
processes  of  the  drawing  act.  In  this  study  ob- 
jects of  gradually  increasing  difficulty  were  pre- 
sented for  representative  drawing  (Abzeichen). 
These  included  such  objects  as  a  piece  of  lime-spar 
lying  upon  a  cigar  box,  and  a  cigaret  box  with 
crayon  and  inkstand.  The  following  types  of 
drawing  were  secured: 

1.  After  the  subject  announced  that  the  ex- 
posure had  been  long  enough  for  sufficient  ob- 
servation, the  object  was  covered  and  drawn 
from  memory. 

2.  Out  of  recollection,  usually  one  day  later, 
of  the  first  attempt. 

3.  From  memory  after  an  exposure  of  one 
minute. 


THE  METHODS  OF  RESEARCH  47 

4.  The  same  object  as  in  j  after  one  day. 

5.  From  memory  after  an  exposure  of  about 
ten  seconds. 

6.  From  memory  after  a  tachistoscopic  ex- 
posure of  about  one-half  second. 

7.  Objects   from   which    all    subjective    con- 
struing had  been  excluded. 

8.  From  the  recollection  of  a  picture,  such  as, 
The  Birth  of  Christ. 

9.  After  an  attempt  at  influencing  the  mem- 
ory by  suggestion. 

Immediately  after  each  drawing  each  subject 
was  asked  questions  to  bring  out  individual  vari- 
ations in  the  subjective  elements  of  the  drawing 
act.  Finally  a  stamp,  the  Hamburg  escutcheon, 
and  the  subject's  own  pocketbook  were  drawn 
from  memory.  The  subjects  were  also  tested  in 
hand  skill  and  types  of  imagery. 


Chapter  III 

STUDIES  IN  THE  RELATION  OF  DRAWING 
TO  INTELLECTUAL  DEVELOPMEJff 

/.  Industrial  versus  Cultural  Values. 

The  rise1  of  drawing  in  the  public  school  program 
of  studies  has  been  due  to  two  more  or  less  con- 
flicting art  interests,  the  industrial  and  the  cul- 
tural Drawing  made  very  little  headway  in  the 
United  States  until  emphasis  upon  its  economic 
value -secured  the  support  of  such  educational 
leaders  as  Horace  Mann  and  Henry  Barnard. 
The  publication  of  a  number  of  foreign  articles  on 
the  value  of  drawing  together  with  the  public- 
spirited  work1  of  such  men  as  William  Bentley 
Fowle,  Rembrandt  Peale,  and  William  Minine, 
kept  an  interest  in  public  school  drawing  alive, 
but  until  1870  progress  was  practically  counter- 
acted by  a  widespread  conception  of  drawing  as  an 
"amusing  exercise."  1 

In  1870  the  st^te  of  Massachusetts  enacted  a 
law  which  states  that  "mechanical  and  industrial" 


1  No  attempt  is  made  here  to  give  even  a  summary  of  the 
historical  rise  of  drawing,  an  account  of  which  may  be  found 
in  Jessup,  Clarke,  Haney,  or  Farnum.     (See  bibliography.) 

■  Haney,  Development  of  Art,  pp.  21-33. 

49 


50  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  DRAWING 

drawing  may  be  freely  taught  in  any  city  and  town, 
and  free  instruction  must  be  given  in  cities  and 
towns  of  over  10,000  inhabitants.  This  was 
followed  by  the  selection  of  Walter  Smith  of  the 
School  of  Arts  in  Leeds,  England,  as  State  Agent. 
Smith  was  a  few  years  later  made  director  of  the 
newly  established  Massachusetts  Normal  Art 
School. 

"As  directors  of  the  foremost  Art  Schools, 
State  Supervisors,  city  directors,  editors  and 
writers,  craftsmen,  painters,  sculptors,  and 
architects,  the  alumni  of  this  particular  school 
and  their  children  of  one  and  two  generations 
lead  in  the  art  world  of  the  United  States 
today."1 

The  Massachusetts  movement  spread  rapidly  to 
other  states,  but  the  great  emphasis  given  to 
mechanical  and  industrial  drawing  was  followed  by 
a  reaction,  chiefly  on  the  part  of  teachers,  toward 
an  emphasis  of  the  intellectual  values  of  drawing. 
This  is  well  illustrated  in  a  quotation  cited  by 
Jessup.1 

"The  old  style  of  drawing  consisted  princi- 
pally of  picture  making  from  copies.  Tjje_new_ 
as  anJbtellectual  study;  the  thought,  ingenuity, 
land  invention  of  the  scholar  in  the  line  of  art 
as  supplied  to  industrial  pursuits.  The  influ- 
ence of  this  branch  is  manifold;  it  especially 

1  Farnum,  Present  Status  of  Drawing  and  Art  in  Schools, 
p.  18. 

1  Jessup,  Special  Supervision  in  the  Public  Schools  of  the 
United  States,  p.  29. 


RELATION  OF  DRAWING  TO  DEVELOPMENT  51 

develops:  (1)  observation;  (2)  forethought;  (3) 
painstaking;  (4)  taste,  imagination;  (5)  memory 
of  forms;  (6)  power  to  discriminate — judgment; 
(7)  ease  and  precision  in  the  movements  of  the 
hand.  As  drawing  is  opposed  to  carelessness, 
haste,  bad  forms,  and  clumsy  execution,  it  is  a 
valuable  art  in  teaching  writing."  Report  of 
the  Schools  of  Erie,  Pennsylvania,  1877-78. 

The  prevailing  belief  in  the  disciplinary  value  of 
drawing  is  summarized  in  Clarke'9  voluminous 
work1  in  1888  as  follows: 

"The  value  of  drawing  as  a  means  of  mental 
discipline  is  believed  to  be  not  inferior  to  that 
of  any  of  the  studies  at  present  included  in  the 
curriculum  of  the  public  schools.  It  is,  there- 
fore, not  only  because  of  its  direct  application 
to  the  industries  and  art  and  hence  of  economic 
value  to  the  pupil,  that  this  study  of  drawing 
has  a  claim  to  admission  into  the  public  schools. 
Its  value  as  a  means  of  developing  and  training 
the  intellectual  faculties  is  so  well  established, 
from  the  professional  point  of  view  of  the  teacher, 
and,  regarded  merely  as  an  instrument  of 
pedagogics,  the  progressive  system  of  ... 
industrial  drawing  can  readily  establish  its 
claim  for  introduction  into  the  elementary 
course  of  instruction  on  educational  grounds 
alone." 

A  value  of  drawing  which  is  of  greater  cultural 
breadth  than  the  so-called  intellectual  value,  and 
which  may  be  called  the  aesthetic  value,  received 

1  Clarke,  I.  E.,  Art  and  Industry,  Part  I,  CXXII.     See 

Jessup,  p.  29. 


52  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  DRAWING 

widespread  acceptance  through  the  interest  in 
design  and  decoration  stimulated  by  the  art 
exhibits  of  the  World's  Fairs  at  Chicago  in  1893  and 
St.  Louis  in  1904.  With  the  development  of  this 
interest  there  has  been  a  marked  tendency  to 
correlate  the  cultural  and  industrial  work  in  the 
v  school  arts  which  has  resulted  in  a  realignment  of 
the  values  of  drawing. 

Henry  Turner  Bailey1  gives  the  following  reasons 
for  requiring  drawing  in  the  public  schools: 

11 1.  Drawing  is  a  language  of  form:  (a) 
graphic  recorder  of  scientific  fact;  (b)  expres- 
sion of  constructive  and  decorative  art;  (c) 
medium  for  expression  of  ideas  of  artistic  beauty. 

"2.  Practice  in  drawing  promotes:  (a)  close 
observation,  thus  insuring  clear  mental  images; 
(b)  muscular  control  or  skill  of  hand;  a  pre- 
^  requisite  in  the  practice  of  any  craft;  (c)  a 
1  knowledge  of  the  elements  of  beauty  in  nature 
and  art,  the  basis  of  design,  and  the  grounds 
for  intelligent  taste  and  appreciation. 

"3.  The  study  of  drawing  opens  the  mind  to 
the  treasures  of  nature  and  the  various  arts; 
increases  the  pleasure  and  general  significance 
of  life." 

In  contrast  to  this,  Sargent's2  analysis  of  drawing 
as  representation  differentiates  the  following 
values : 


1  Bailey,  Monroe's  Cyclopedia  of  Education,  1912. 

2  Sargent,  Fine  and  Industrial  Arts  in  Elementary  Schools, 
1912. 


J /RELATION  OF  DRAWING  TO  DEVELOPMENT    53 

j  f  i.  General.  "Drawing  is  a  language,  a  mode 
of  reproducing  ideas,  and  as  such  is  a  means  of 
forming  and  developing  these  ideas."  "Draw- 
ing develops  ability  of  concrete  habits  of 
thought."  "Drawing  stimulates  the  mental 
activity  of  children." 

2.  Industrial.  "To  the  man  engaged  in 
constructive  work,  drawing  offers  a  means  of 
endless  experimentation." 

3.  Scientific.  "In  scientific  studies  drawing 
focuses  the  attention  upon,  and  quickens  obser- 
vation of,  facts  of  form  and  structure,  rendering 
the  senses  more  accurate  in  their  testimony  and 
furnishing  a  means  of  making  definite  records." 

4.  Aesthetic.  "Representation  is  also  the 
language  of  the  fine  arts  of  painting  and  sculp- 
ture." 

R.  B.  Farnum,1  who  has  recently  made  a  thor- 
ough-going investigation  into  the  status  of  draw- 
ing and  art  in  the  elementary  and  secondary 
schools  of  the  United  States  for  the  Bureau  of 
Education  and  is  probably  more  familiar  with  the 
general  situation  than  any  other  man  in  the  country, 
states  that: 

"The  broad  and  general  purpose  of  culture 
through  art  education  may  be  roughly  sub- 
divided into  three  distinct  aims.  .  .  which 
are  universally  agreed  upon.  Such  an  educa- 
tion should  train  (a)  in  expression,  (b)  in  obser- 
vation, (c)  in  appreciation." 


1  Farnum,  Present  Status  of  Drawing  and  Art  in  Schools, 
1914. 


54  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  DRAWING 

(a)  Expression.  "As  an  outward  expression 
of  the  mental  processes,  the  value  of  the  study 
of  art  lies  in  stimulating  the  finest  ideals  and  in 
giving  command  of  the  best  means  of  expressing 
them." 

(b)  Observation.  "Keen  and  accurate  obser- 
vation, then,  is  fundamental  to  art  and  is  an 
asset  in  the  broadest  sense.  It  calls  for  close 
analysis  and  stimulates  the  initiative  of  the 
discoverer." 

(c)  Appreciation.  "Appreciation  as  applied 
to  master  creations  of  the  artist  in  architecture, 
sculpture,  painting,  to  the  forms  of  minor  art 
seen  in  the  works  of  the  craftsman,  to  nature, 
to  the  very  environment  of  the  person  himself, 
is  the  third  aim  in  art  education." 

With  these  several  aims  of  drawing  in  mind,  it 
is  interesting  to  note  the  emphasis  that  is  given  to 
technical  ability  in  college  entrance  requirements. 
The  following  university  entrance  requirement1 
must  be  met  by  candidates  who  apply  for  five 
credits  in  freehand  or  mechanical  drawing: 

Freehand  Drawing.  The  applicant  must  pos- 
sess ability: 

i.  To  make  rapid  sketches  from  objects 
which  shall  indicate  the  perspective  appearance, 
the  proportions,  and  the  main  characteristics  of 
structure  and  form. 

2.  To  make  as  records  of  observations  such 
drawings  as  would  be  appropriate  for  illustra- 
tion to  accompany  high  school  studies  in  the 
sciences. 


1  University  of  Chicago  Entrance  Requirements,  19 12. 


RELATION  OF  DRAWING  TO  DEVELOPMENT  55 

3.  To  sketch  freehand,  from  specifications, 
any  simple  geometric  figure. 

4.  To  match  with  water  colors  any  given 
color,  or  to  carry  a  flat  wash  of  color  over  a 
given  area. 

Mechanical  Drawing.  The  applicant  must  pos- 
sess ability: 

1.  From  a  given  mechanical  drawing  of  a 
simple  object  to  make  a  freehand  drawing  of 
the  appearance  of  the  object  in  perspective. 

2.  From  a  simple  geometric  form  or  con- 
structed object  to  make  dimensioned  freehand 
working  drawings  which  furnish  data  sufficient 
for  a  finished  instrumental  drawing  or  for  the 
construction  of  the  object. 

3.  From  specifications  to  make  a  completed 
working  drawing,  freehand  or  instrumental,  or 
a  sketch  of  the  appearance  of  the  object. 

It  should  be  stated  here  that  outside  of  art  and 
technical  schools  individuals  are  rarely  found  who 
measure  up  to  the  standards  of  the  foregoing  aims 
and  requirements. 

II.  Scientific  Values. 

Attention  was  called  in  the  introductory  chap- 
ter to  the  fact  that  representative  drawing  is 
esteemed  by  many  teachers  as  a  useful  device  for 
securing  analytical  observation.  This  concep- 
tion of  the  value  of  drawing  is  more  specifically 
disclosed  in  the  following  list  of  typical  quotations 
from  laboratory  manuals  and  relevant  literature: 


56  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  DRAWING 

Spencer,  Education,  1861.  Drawing  is  "a 
means  whereby  still  greater  accuracy  and  com- 
pleteness of  observation  is  induced." 

Johonot,  Principles  and  Practice  of  Teaching, 
1878.  "Drawing  is  of  the  highest  use  to  all 
intellectually  in  inciting  to  correct  observation." 

Bergen,  Note-book  to  Accompany  Botany 
Texts,  1904.  "Sketch  every  thing  that  can  be 
drawn,  and  then  explain  in  writing  all  points 
not  evident  from  the  sketches." 

Ganong,  The  Teaching  Botanist,  1900.  "The 
very  act  of  drawing  will  call  attention  to  fea- 
tures otherwise  overlooked." 

Maxwell,  The  New  Course  of  Study,  1904. 
"Use  drawing  wherever  possible  and  particu- 
larly in  nature  study,  for  there  can  be  no  proper 
study  of  these  objects  unless  they  are  drawn. 
This  is  absolutely  essential." 

Hardest,  Laboratory  Guide  for  Histology, 
1908.  "In  drawing  one  learns  to  practice  habits 
of  neatness  and  astuteness  of  observation." 

Conn,  Biology,  1912.  "In  all  cases  where 
laboratory  work  is  possible,  students  should  be 
required  to  make  careful  drawings  of  the  ob- 
jects." 

Curtis,  Laboratory  Directions  in  General 
Zoology,  1912.  "Drawings  are  used  solely  as  a 
means  of  enforcing  exact  observation  and 
recording  the  results  of  the  same." 

Bastin,     Laboratory    Exercises    in     Botany, 

1895.     "They  [drawings]  are  useful  not  only  in 

explaining   to   others   the   structures   observed, 

but  they  are  in  themselves  great  aids  also  to 

\  accurate  observation,  and  are  equally  helpful  in 


RELATION  OF  DRAWING  TO  DEVELOPMENT  57 

giving    vividness    and    permanency    to    knowl- 
edge." 

Hall,  The  Teaching  of  Physics,  1913.  "Prac- 
tice of  the  graphical  method  of  record,  by  means 
of  the  simplest  possible  drawings,  is  of  very 
great  service;  for  it  requires  the  pupil  really  to 
study  his  apparatus,  and  yet,  by  saving  many 
words,  may  save  his  time  as  well  as  that  of  the 
reader." 

The  use  of  drawing  as  a  device  for  recording  the 
work  accomplished  by  the  pupil  is  practically 
universal. 

Ganong,  The  Teaching  Botanist,  1910.  "He 
can  not  make  even  a  passable  scientific  drawing 
or  written  description  of  an  object  until  he  has 
first  seen  it  accurately  and  completely,  and 
realized  its  construction."  "For  his  purpose 
both  drawings  and  descriptions  are  needed." 

Bigelow,  The  Teaching  of  Zoology,  1907. 
"The  ideal  record  of  laboratory  work  in  zool- 
ogy consists  of  both  drawings  and  notes." 

In  spite  of  the  common  belief  in  the  efficacy  of 
representative  drawing  to  secure  analytical  obser- 
vation, there  is  a  growing  realization  among  those 
who  have  given  more  thought  to  laboratory  prac- 
tice that  the  purely  representative  drawing  does 
not  accomplish  this  purpose. 

Ganong,  The  Teaching  Botanist,  1910.  "It 
is  essential  for  the  teacher  to  realize  that  scien- 
tific drawing  does  not  consist  in  the  composi- 
tion of  pictures  correct  in  perspective  and  fine 


58  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  DRAWING 

finish,  but  in  the  making  of  diagrammatic 
outlines  which  convey  to  the  mind  of  the  be- 
holder accurate  conceptions  of  the  real  construc- 
tion of  the  object  represented." 

Bigelow,  The  Teaching  of  Zoology,  1907. 
"Drawings,  like  the  structures  they  represent, 
lend  themselves  chiefly  to  the  training  in  ob- 
servation. For  sound  training  in  induction  we 
must  have  notes  .  .  .  clearly  written,  logical 
accounts  of  observations,  experiments,  and 
conclusions." 

To  these  quotations  should  be  added  one  of 
Luquet's  conclusions.1 

"For  to  set  limits  to  the  sense  of  observation, 
it  is  certain  that  in  making  the  child  draw  one 
attracts  his  attention  to  motifs  in  which  he  was 
perhaps  not  interested  by  himself.  But  if  we 
consider  here  drawing  as  an  element  of  'object 
lessons,'  logical  realism  is  infinitely  more  adapted 
to  this  role  than  visual  realism,  since  it  con- 
sists precisely  in  placing  in  the  drawing  all 
that  is  in  the  object,  and  to  typify  all  of  the 
elements,  each  with  its  exemplary  form,  and 
by  logical  realism  the  child  in  some  way  spon- 
taneously effects  the  dissection  of  the  object 
which  he  reproduces." 

III.  Relation  of  Drawing  to  Special  and  General 
Aptitudes. 

Many  writers  have  called  attention  to  the  value 
of  drawing  as  a  means  of  studying  the  intellectual 


\ 


JLuquet,  Les  Dessins  d'qn  Enfant,  pp.  250-51, 


RELATION  OF  DRAWING  TO  DEVELOPMENT  59 

development  of  the  child.  The  spontaneous 
drawing  in  particular  serves  as  a  definite  form  of 
expression  to  reveal  many  conditions  of  the  child's 
mental  life  and  growth  which  are  otherwise  inac-  \ 
cessible.  Here,  as  with  all  children's  drawings,  it 
is  unwise  to  build  too  much  upon  group  collections 
unless  augmented  by  the  acts  and  remarks  of  the 
children  while  drawing  and  by  series  of  drawings 
from  the  same  children.1 

The  relation  which  exists  between  ability  in 
drawing  and  ability  in  other  subjects  and  other 
modes  of  expression  is  an  interesting  question 
which  bears  directly  upon  our  general  problem. 
The  literature  of  drawing  contains  abundant  com- 
ment concerning  the  relation  of  drawing  to  other 
subjects,  as  well  as  to  general  intelligence,  but 
there  is  very  little  in  the  way  of  exact  experimental 
investigation. 

Miss  Elderton*  compared  19  boys  in  the  Fourth 
Form  of  an  English  public  school  as  to  abilities  in 
Drawing  and  Classics  and  obtained  a  correlation 
of  416.^  With  the  same  number  of  boys  in  the 
next  higher  form,  the  Remove,  she  obtained  a 
negative  correlation  of  —  313.  Waiving  criticism 
as  to  the  manner  of  obtaining  the  original  grades, 
the  small  number  of  subjects,   nineteen,   in  this 


1  Rouma,  Le  Langage  Graphique  de  l'Enfant,  p.  157. 
*  Elderton,   On  the  Association  of   Drawing  with  Other 
Capacities  in  School  Children,  Biometrika,  1909. 


60  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  DRAWING 

study  permits  chance  to  play  so  large  a  part  in 
the  ultimate  correlation  discovered  that  the  figures 
given  are  practically  without  value. 

The  most  pretentious  attempt  in  this  field  is 
the  study  of  M.  Ivanof,1  which  embraces  9764 
drawings.  The  correlations  were  made  according 
to  age  and  not  by  grade  in  school.  The  valua- 
tion of  the  drawings  was  based  upon  three  factors : 
(1)  accuracy  of  proportions,  (2)  imaginative  con- 
ception, (3)  technical  and  artistic  value. 

The  individual  drawings  were  graded  from  per- 
fect down  to  worthless  on  a  scale  of  points:  6,  5, 
4,  3,  2,  1,  and  o.  Each  drawer  was  eventually 
classified  from  the  average  of  four  drawings  graded 
separately  into  one  of  three  groups: 

1.  Good  drawers  (Average  6  or  5). 

2.  Medium  drawers  (Average  4  or  3). 

3.  Poor  drawers  (Average  2,  1,  or  o). 
Table  I  expresses  the  final  results: 

The  results  shown  in  this  table  indicate  that 
ability  in  drawing  is  positively  correlated  with 
general  ability,  particularly  among  the  girls.  The 
results  are,  however,  open  to  criticism  on  account 
of  the  possible  variability  of  the  original  grades  in 
the  variousn5rancNhesr  These  were  obtained  on 
the  basis  of  the  individual  judgments  of  a  number 
of  different  teachers  and  not  by  accurate  psycho- 

1  Ivanof,  Correlation  entre*  1' Aptitude  au  Dessin  et  les 
autres  Aptitudes,  1908. 


RELATION  OF  DRAWING  TO  DEVELOPMENT  61 


Table  I 

Correlation  Between  Aptitude  in  Drawing  and  Work  in  General 

The  figures  show  the  percentage  of  pupils  in  each  group  who 
were  strong  students  in  general  work. 


Strong  Pupils 

Berne 

Geneve 

Neu- 
chatel 

Vaud 

C   %  among  all  pupils 

Boys  j    %  among  good  drawers. 
(.    %  among  poor  drawers. 

33 
45 
29 

33 
40 
22 

34 
34 
15 

32 
54 
15 

(    %  among  all  pupils 

Girls  <    %  among  good  drawers. 
(.   %  among  poor  drawers. 

36 
60 
30 

32 
48 
12 

39 

IOO 

22 

35 
68 
18 

logical  tests.  Moreover,  the  three  factors  used 
for  grading  the  drawings  are  widely  variable  and 
afford  a  source  for  misinterpretation  of  the  final 
results.  Ivanof  also  estimated  the  correlation 
between  drawing  and  a  number  of  other  school 
subjects. 

1.  Drawing  and  Writing,  (a)  Of  boys  who 
are  good  in  drawing,  the  percentage  good  in 
writing  is  higher  and  the  percentage  poor  in 
writing  is  much  lower  than  with  the  average  of 
the  pupils,  (b)  The  correlation  is  less  clear 
with  the  girls,  since  the  percentage  of  good  girl 
drawers  who  are  poor  in  writing  (18%)  is  prac- 
tically equal  to  the  average  (17%).  (c)  Includ- 
ing all,  there  is  a  positive  correlation. 

2.  Drawing  and  Geography,  (a)  Boys  are 
more  often  better,  and  less  often  poorer,  than 
girls,     (b)  There  is  a  positive  correlation  between 


62  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  DRAWING 

drawing  and  geography  with  both  boys  and 
girls.  This  correlation  is  easily  explained,  be- 
cause the  study  of  geography  involves  the 
memory  to  a  great  extent. 

3.  Drawing  and  History.  Conclusion.  It  is 
not  easy  to  explain  the  stgggg  rnrrpl  a  tjpn  which 
we  have  found  between  history  and  drawing. 
It  may  come  from  an  indirect  correration ; 
perhaps  those  good  in  history,  like  those  good 
in  drawing,  are  those  who  know  best  how  to 
construct  mentally  the  visual  schemas  of  events, 
scenes,  objects. 

4.  Drawing  and  Calculation.  The  correla- 
tion is  clearly  present  with  the  girls;  it  is  less 
marked  with  the  boys.  With  the  pupils  at 
Vaud  the  results  are  antagonistic. 

5.  Drawing  and  Manual  Arts.  Large  corre- 
lation present.  This  is  easily  explained.  It 
implies  many  of  the  same  physiological  factors: 
exactness  of  the  visual  sense,  precision  in  hand 
movements,  aesthetic  taste. 

6.  Drawing  and  Language.  Contradictory  re- 
ports from  canton  to  canton.  Ivanof  con- 
cludes the  correlation  is  uncertain. 

7.  Drawing    and    French    Composition.     The 
.    results  show  a  positive  correlation. 

All  of  the  results  above  are  open  to  a  number 
of  criticisms  which  will  be  discussed  in  greater 
detail  in  connection  with  a  similar  personal  re- 
search.    (See  Chapter  VI.) 

Kik,1  in  the  course  of  his  elaborate  study  of 
thirteen  unusually  talented   drawers,   makes  the 

1  Kik,  Die  ubernormale  Zeichenbegabung  bei  Kindern, 
1908. 


RELATION  OF  DRAWING  TO  DEVELOPMENT  63 

following  statement  with  reference  to  the  relation 
between  talent  in  drawing  and  the  degree  of  gen- 
eral intelligence: 

"It  is  easy  to  comprehend  that  mechanical 
copying  as  merely  skill  of  hand  has  nothing  to 
do  with  general  intelligence  and  that  a  good 
copyist  may  be  a  poor  scholar.  In  general, 
the  pure  copyists  are  weak  pupils  in  the  scien- 
tific branches.  As  the  number  of  copyists  is 
sufficiently  large,  and  since  they  formerly  ob- 
tained the  best  marks,  one  has  been  able  to 
say,  'A  good  drawer  is  a  poor  scholar.'  But  in 
reality  it  is  the  statement  of  Kerschensteiner 
which  is  true:  'A  great  talent  of  graphic  expres- 
sion is  regularly  associated  with  the  child  of 
good  intelligence.'  The  activity  of  the  memory 
and  the  imagination  in  drawing  proves  that  it  I 
is  intellectual  work  and  that  a  great  talent  for) 
drawing  is  always  the  sign  of  a  developed  intel- 
ligence. Experience  demonstrates  it.  The  good 
drawers  show  a  good  or  satisfactory  faculty  for 
the  scientific  branches;  they  have  certain  strong 
subjects  and  certain  weak  subject*.  Often  the 
good  drawers  are  strong  in  the  natural  scien 
Favored  by  their  love  of  nature,  they  have  ac-* 
quired  a  mass  of  empirical  knowledge  and  at- 
tend the  lessons  with  interest.  The  drawers  of 
imagination  are  excellent  in  style  and  obtain 
good  marks  in  German;  literature  pleases  them; 
there  they  find  material  for  drawing.  Preoc- 
cupied with  concrete  objectsrthey~irave  a  cer- 
tain weakness  for  the  abstract  sciences:  mathe- 
matics, algebra,  geometry.  Finally,  they  are 
not-brilliant  in  oral  expression,  habituated  and 
tempted  as  they  are  to  express  themselves  by 
drawing." 


64  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  DRAWING 

Rouma1  agrees  with  the  general  trend  of  these 
conclusions,  but  Albien,2  after  a  careful  experi- 
mental study  of  the  drawing  act,  says: 

"The  foregoing  experiments  give  no  confirma- 
tion to  the  thesis  which  Kerschensteiner  up- 
holds: very  great  talent  for  graphic  expression 
is  positively  correlated  in  children  with  good 
intellectual  endowment.  For  the  pupils  in  the 
foregoing  attempts  did  not  show  equally  not- 
able intelligence  and  good  drawing  talent.  The 
most  talented  boy  in  drawing  ranks  29  in  a 
class  of  46." 

These  contradictory  reports  result  in  great  part 
from  different  interpretation  of  the  meaning  of 
the  word  drawing.  Ivanof  includes  under  draw- 
ing factors  of  imagination  and  aesthetic  interpre- 
tation, while  Albien's  experiments  restrict  draw- 
ing to  pure  representation.  Kik  specifically  denies 
good  intelligence  to  the  copyist  and  claims  it  for 
the  artist.  It  is  probable  that  drawing,  as  an  aft," 
is  characterized  by  some  of  the  same  factors 
which  enter  into  "general  intelligence,"  while 
drawing,  as  mere  representation,  is  relatively 
specialized.  The  conclusions  of  two  studies  in 
general  intelligence  bear  upon  this  question. 

Terman3  tested  seven  of  the  brightest  boys  and 


1  Rouma,  Op.  cit.,  p.  198. 
a  Albien,  Op.  cit.,  p.  33. 

'Terman,  Genius  and  Stupidity,   Pedagogical  Seminary, 
1906. 


RELATION  OF  DRAWING  TO  DEVELOPMENT  65 

seven  of  the  dullest  boys  in  a  group  of  five  hundred 
elementary  school  pupils  in  (a)  powers  of  inven- 
tion and  imagination,  (b)  mathematical  ability, 
(c)  mastery  of  language,  (d)  insight,  (e)  ease  of 
learning  the  game  of  chess,  (f)  memory,  and  (g) 
motor  ability.  He  concludes  that  the  bright 
boys  are  superior  to  the  dull  boys  in  all  mental 
tests  and  inferior  in  the  motor. 

Simpson1  investigated  the  correlation  present  in 
a  variety  of  mental  abilities  which  he  groups 
roughly  under  the  heads:  sense-discrimination, 
motor  control,  efficiency  in  perception,  efficiency 
in  association,  memory,  and  selective  thinking. 
Upon  the  basis  of  his  own  and  previous  experi- 
ments Simpson  concludes: 

"We  find  justification  for  the  common  as- 
sumption that  there  is  a  close  interrelation 
among  certain  mental  abilities,  and  conse- 
quently a  something  which  may  be  called  'gen- 
eral mental  ability'  or  'general  intelligence'; 
and  that,  on  the  other  hand,  certain  capacities 
are  relatively  specialized,  and  do  not  neces- 
sarily imply  other  abilities  except  to  a  very 
limited  extent." 

Whatever  correlation  may  exist  in  general  be- 
tween talent  in  drawing  and  other  intellectual 
capacities,  it  is  quite  evident  that  there  are  num- 
erous individual  cases  where  a  high  state  of  intelli- 


1  Simpson,  Correlation  of  Mental  Abilities,  19 12. 


66  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  DRAWING 

gence  is  not  a  sign  of  superior  drawing  ability. 
Not  only  is  this  true,  but  it  is  not  particularly 
uncommon  to  find  cases  of  extreme  negative  cor- 
relation between  drawing  ability  and  other  mani- 
festations of  intelligence.  Rouma's1  tests  with 
weak-minded  children  show  that  subjects  with 
feeble  intelligence  sometimes  have  very  strong 
visual  memories  and  make  slowly  achieved  draw- 
ings which  are  remarkable  in  perfection  of  detail. 
In  contrast  to  this,  Stiehler2  records  that  he  has 
two  sculptors  in  his  Seminar  practice  school  who 
have  no  ability  in  drawing  whatever,  and  Meu- 
mann3  describes  an  adult  specialist  in  psychology 
whose  drawings  are  entirely  without  represent- 
ative value. 


1  Rouma,  Op.  cit.,  p.  199. 

9  Stiehler,    Psychologie   und   Methodik   des  Zeichenunter- 
richts,  p.  35. 
*  Meumann,  Experimentelle  Padagogik,  III,  p.  750. 


Chapter  IV 

STUDIES  IN  THE  ANALYSIS  OF  THE  DRAW- 
ING PRODUCT 

J.  Gross  Products. 

- 

Many  investigators  have  been  interested  in  the 
broad  question  of  what  children  draw  and  numer- 
ous analyses  of  large  collections  of  drawings  have 
been  made  upon  this  basis.  A  typical  example  is 
the  study  of  1570  drawings  by  Mrs.  Maitland.1 
The  drawings  were  obtained  by  asking  children  to 
draw  what  they  pleased.  The  drawings  were 
then  collected  and  classified  as  shown  in  the  fol- 
lowing table: 

Table  II 
What  Children  Draw  Spontaneously 

The  figures  indicate  the  number  of  children  who  drew  the 
type  specified  at  the  various  ages. 

Type  S-?yn.      8-xo  yw.    11-13  yre.    14-15  yn. 

Human  figure 45  40  8               5 

Animals.. 23  21  II  10  - 

Plants 35  30  17  11- 

Houses 32  30  13               4 

Mechanical 8  13  11               8 

Still  life 40  47  39  31  .  • 

Geometric  design 5  12  28  37  - 

Ornament 3  3  4               8 

1  Maitland,  What  Children  Draw  to  Please  Themselves. 
67 


68  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OP  DRAWING 

Levinstein1  finds  similar  results  in  a  gross  analy- 
sis of  several  large  collections  of  drawings.  At 
early  ages  children  prefer  to  draw  the  human 
form.  As  age  increases,  animals,  plants,  and 
diverse  objects  respectively  gain  a  larger  place  in 
the  drawings.  In  all  cases  it  is  the  familiar  animal 
or  plant  which  receives  the  highest  percentage  of 
representation. 

On  the  other  hand,  Probst,2  in  a  study  of  the 
spontaneous  drawings  of  the  native  children  of  a 
Kabyle  tribe  in  Algiers,  finds  that  animals  are 
drawn  in  preference  to  the  human  figure.  Probst 
asserts  that  the  matter  of  choice  varies  with  the 
race  and  that  it  is  dependent  upon  local  tradition 
and  environment. 

The  evolution  of  the  representation  of  the  human 
figure  affords  material  for  the  analysis  of  the 
development  of  a  specific  type.  Lena  Partridge3 
has  catalogued  the  variations  of  the  different  child 
ages  in  detail. 

These  statistics  indicate  that  there  are  a  num- 
ber of  well-marked  general  stages  in  the  evolu- 
tion of  the  representation  of  the  human  figure. 
|  At  early  ages  the  child  has  little  idea  of  form, 
proportion,  or  visual  representation.  The  simple 
!  notions  gradually  include  more  and  more  detail 

1  Levinstein,  Kinderzeichnungen. 

*  Probst,  Les  Dessins  des  Enfants  Kabyles. 

3  Partridge,  L.,  Children's  Drawings  of  Men  and  Women. 


ANALYSIS  OF  THE  DRAWING  PRODUCT      69 

Table  III 

What  Children  Draw  in  Representing  the  Human  Form 
The  figures  give  percentages  of  children  at  each  age. 

Agea  4        56        78        9       io      11        12       13 

Body 50  82  92  93  98  99  98  99  100  100 

Feet 39  83  92  93  94  98  98  97  98  98 

Arms 45  67  71  80  76  75  93  90  95  95 

Neck 8  22  20  37  51  63  79  79  90  93 

Hair 6  26  27  32  38  58  70  65  73  82 

Beard I  12  15  12  18  34  40  36  60  51 

Feet  profile...  15  54  66  73  78  87  83  85  79  85 

Nose  profile. ..  6  34  46  65  76  79  81  81  77  76 

Body  profile. . .  1  5  7  16  30  36  41  50  59  62 

Hat 32  57  59  76  78  81  84  89  85  80 

Buttons 30  37  37  52  55  66  64  81  79  83 

until  approximately  complete.  The  change  from 
full-face  representation  to  profile  is  a  marked 
characteristic  in  the  development  of  the  human 
figure. 

Levinstein1  makes  similar  generalizations  from 
a  large  array  of  drawings.  The  biographical 
studies  of  Rouma*  and  Luquet8  indicate  that  the 
representation  of  animal  as  well  as  human  forms 
passes  through  a  series  of  stages  which  appear 
successively. 


1  Levinstein,  Op.  cit. 

1  Rouma,  Le  Langage  Graphique  de  PEnfant. 

•  Luquet,  Les  Dessins  d'un  Enfant. 


7o  The  psychology  of  drawing 

Many  students  have  been  interested  in  the  way 
in  which  children  draw.  There  is  a  considerable 
mass  of  literature  devoted  to  the  study  of  the 
child's  difficulty  with  the  factors  of  time,  orienta- 
tion, opacity,  proportion,  space,  perspective,  and 
movement.  The  majority  of  children  master 
these  problems  in  similar  fashion. 

Rouma1  distinguishes  four  stages  of  develop- 
ment in  the  representation  of  movement. 

1.  The  drawings  are  stereotyped,  indicating 
merely  that  a  man  or  an  animal  is  being  repre- 
sented. The  child  announces  verbally  what 
the  motion  is.     "The  man  runs." 

2.  The  second  stage  shows  movement  by 
some  form  of  relationship.  A  line  is  drawn 
from  the  stereotyped  form  of  a  dog  to  a  house, 
which  indicates  that  the  dog  is  going  to  the 
house. 

3.  The  movement  is  partially  indicated  in 
the  drawing.  A  raised  leg,  with  the  remainder 
of  the  figure  stereotyped,  shows  that  a  man  is 
running. 

4.  The  entire  drawing  depicts  motion. 

The  following  table  is  taken  from  Rouma.  The 
figures  indicate  the  variation  in  representation  of 
motion  by  ages.  The  tests  were  given  to  five 
classes  in  a  Molenbeek  school  for  girls. 


1  Rouma,  Op.  cit.,  pp.  86-104. 


ANALYSIS  OF  THE  DRAWING  PRODUCT      71 

Table  IV 

Representation  of  Motion 

The  figures  indicate  the  number  of  children  of  different  ages. 


First  Grade — 33  pupils 

Ages 

First  Stage 

Second  Stage 

Third  Stage 

Fourth  Stage 

Neutral 

Relative 

Partial 

Complete 

6  yrs — 

3 

15 

O 

O 

7  yrs.... 

0 

5 

0 

O 

8  yrs.. . . 

1 

5 

2 

O 

9  yrs.... 

1 

1 

O 

0 

5 

26 

2 

O 

Fourth  Grade — 26  pupils 

9  yrs.... 

0 

0 

3 

I 

10  yrs... . 

0 

1 

3 

2 

11  yrs 

0 

0 

2 

3 

12  yrs... . 

0 

0 

3 

6 

13  yrs.... 

0 

1 

0 

1 

0 

2 

11 

13 

These  statistics  show  that,  while  there  is  a  gen- 
eral parallelism  between  advance  in  age  and  the 
ability  to  represent  movement,  there  is  great  vari- 
ation among  individual  pupils.  Different  chil- 
dren of  the  same  age  appear  in  three  different 
stages  of  drawing. 


72  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  DRAWING 

Levinstein1  tabulated  4943  illustrations  of 
Hans  Guck'in-die-Luft  upon  the  basis  of  the 
manner  of  drawing.  As  a  result  he  distinguishes 
two  chief  types  of  drawings.  (1)  Fragmentbilder 
(fragment-pictures)  and  (2)  Erzdhlungsbilder  (nar- 
rative-pictures). The  illustrations  of  a  child  of 
six  years  afford  a  pure  example  of  the  Fragment- 
bilder. No  actual  scene  is  represented,  but  the 
illustration  is  composed  of  isolated  figures  scat- 
tered over  the  paper  entirely  without  organiza- 
tion. At  older  ages  the  children  begin  to  produce 
the  Erzdhlungsbilder.  The  scenes  of  the  story 
are  now  distinguished  and  arranged  according  to 
the  sequence  of  the  phrases  of  the  story,  a  scene  for 
each  phrase  in  chronological  order.  Levinstein 
found  that  this  type  is  begun  at  the  age  of  9  or 
10,  and  that  at  11  or  12  it  is  the  chief  type  of  the 
children's  illustrations. 

Rouma2  made  a  similar  test  to  satisfy  himself 
of  the  true  worth  of  Levinstein's  conclusions. 
Rouma  had  the  story  of  the  Petit-Poucet  related 
to  the  children  as  the  scenes  were  shown  by  the 
cinematograph.  He  found  that  the  Erzdhlungs- 
bilder gradually  displaced  the  Fragmentbilder  in 
the  children's  illustrations  according  to  the  in- 
crease in  age,  but  that  it  occurred  at  an  earlier 


1  Levinstein,  Op.  cit. 

1  Rouma,  Op.  cit.,  p.  150. 


ANALYSIS  OF  THE  DRAWING  PRODUCT       73 

age  than  Levinstein  had  found.  In  addition  he 
made  a  very  significant  discovery  by  asking  some 
of  the  children  who  always  drew  Fragmentbilder 
to  act  out  the  story.  He  found  that  they  could 
act  out  all  of  the  scenes  in  complete  detail.  He 
then  had  them  draw  again,  but  they  were  unable 
to  make  other  than  the  fragmentary  illustrations. 
The  fact  that  the  children  knew  all  about  the 
story,  but  could  not  make  the  drawings,  shows 
that  the  type  of  drawing  does  not  indicate  the 
child's  knowledge.  His  physical  behavior,  there- 
fore, does  not  depend  upon  clear  visual  images  of 
the  scenes  of  the  story. 

II.  Stages  in  the  Development  of  Drawing. 

We  have  seen  that  it  is  possible  to  distinguish 
a  number  of  developmental  periods  in  the  mastery 
of  graphic  representation.  The  earlier  students  of 
children's  drawings  mark  out  three  distinct  per- 
iods in  the  growth  of  the  normal  child.  Burk,1 
for  example,  states  that: 

"The  progress  of  a  child  learning  to  draw  is 
roughly  divisible  into  three  periods. 

"i.  A  period  in  which  the  movements  are 
wholly  muscular  and  are  unguided  by  the 
visual  centers  in  any  degree;  roughly,  this 
period  is  that  of  the  second  and  third  years. 

"2.  A    period   roughly   between    the    fourth 


1  Burk,  The  Genetic  versus  the  Logical  Order  in  Drawing, 
1902,  p.  321. 


74  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  DRAWING 

year  and  the  ninth  or  tenth,  characterized  by 
the  first  beginning  of  crude  representation  and 
slowly  proceeding  toward  an  interest  to  accur- 
ate drawing  of  objects  as  they  are  actually  seen. 
"3.  A  period  beginning  with  an  interest  in 
accurate  representation  of  what  the  eye  sees  to 
the  exclusion  of  associated  ideas." 

The  more  recent  analytical  and  biographical 
studies  render  it  possible  to  characterize  the 
development  of  drawing  in  greater  detail.  Both 
objective  and  subjective  standards  determine  the 
delimitation  of  the  individual  developmental 
periods.  The  objective  point  of  view  dominates 
the  following  differentiation.  (After  Kerschen- 
steiner  and  Meumann.) 

1 .  P re-experimental  Stage.  The  separate  parts 
of  the  objects  drawn  are  merely  placed  side  by 
side.  The  little  drawer  represents  his  father  or 
mother  by  placing  the  principal  parts  of  their 
bodies  side  by  side.  The  child  does  not  really 
draw;  he  tells,  describes,  counts  up  what  he 
knows.  He  has  grasped  the  idea  of  graphical 
expression  and  seeks  for  a  new  form  of  expres- 
sion and  communication.  This  stage  extends 
nearly  to  the  fourth  year. 

2.  Stage  of  the  Schema.  The  drawing  is 
schematic.  The  child's  outlines  of  animals  and 
various  objects  are  not  visual  representations, 
but  are  symbolic  reproductions  of  what  the 
child  knows.  He  does  not  attempt  to  show 
accurate  details;  is  satisfied  with  rounding  con- 
tours.    The    same    or    only    slightly    changed 


ANALYSIS  OF  THE  DRAWING  PRODUCT      75 

schema  serves  for  a  man  or  a  woman.  The 
animal  schema  is  a  man  laid  horizontally,  with 
four  legs  added.  The  laws  of  opacity,  per- 
spective, and  space  relations  are  not  recog- 
nized. The  child  shows  both  exterior  and 
interior  of  a  house  in  the  same  drawing. 

3.  Stage  of  Beginning  Appreciation  of  Line 
and  Form.  The  child  makes  his  first  attempts 
at  coherent  visual  representation,  but  the 
imitative  appearance  still  contains  schematic 
features.  This  stage  begins  about  the  seventh 
year  with  gifted  drawers,  much  later  with  the 
untalented,  or  is  never  reached. 

4.  Stage  of  Representation  According  to  Ap- 
pearance. The  schema  disappears  from  the 
drawing.  The  form  of  the  representation  is 
determined  by  the  appearance  of  the  object. 
The  drawing  is  in  outline;  it  makes  no  attempt 
at  the  reproduction  of  tri-dimensional  space. 
Beginning  with  the  eleventh  year,  a  conspicuous 
percentage  of  children  cultivate  a  number  of ' 
means  of  representation  of  depth  and  plastic- 
ity.    This  introduces  the  final  stage. 

5.  Stage  of  Representation  According  to  Tri- 
dimensional Form.  The  depth  and  plasticity  of 
objects  are  now  shown  by  means  of  proper 
regulation  of  light  and  shade,  perspective,  and 
foreshortening.  This  is  the  final  stage,  typical 
of  the  highest  development  of  drawing.  Many 
drawers  do  not  reach  this  stage. 

The  subjective  standards  of  delimitation  are 
based  upon  the  development  of  individual  chil- 
dren.    Luquet's  biographical  study  indicates  that 


76      THE  PS  YCHOLOG  Y  OF  DRA  WING 

all    individuals    pass    successively    through    four 
ages  or  phases  of  drawing.1 

1.  Involuntary  Drawing.  The  child  has  per- 
ceived that  the  drawings  of  others  represent 
objects  and  that  he  is  able  to  trace  lines  for 
himself.  He  does  not  realize,  however,  that  he 
can  represent  similarly  with  his  own  lines.  He 
notes  the  accidental  similarity  of  his  drawings 
after  he  has  made  them  and  then  calls  atten- 
tion to  "his"  drawing.  It  is  not  yet  an  inten- 
tional creation. 

2.  Synthetic  Incapacity.  The  child  deter- 
mines to  represent  the  visual  appearance  of 
objects.  From  then  on  he  varies  only  in  his 
manner  of  expressing  realism.  In  this  stage  he 
is  overcome  by  diverse  obstacles,  the  chief  of 
which  is  his  synthetic  incapacity  to  assemble 
the  different  details  which  have  gained  his  at- 
tention into  a  coherent  whole. 

3.  Logical  Realism.  This  age  is  character- 
ized by  logical  realism.  The  child  deliberately 
attempts  to  reproduce  not  only  what  he  is  able 
to  see  of  an  object,  but  all  there  is.  He  gives  a 
typical  form  to  each  part. 

4.  Visual  Realism.  In  this  stage  the  child 
arrives    at    visual    representation,    submitting 

•  with  more  or  less  lack  of  skill  in  execution  to  the 
I  principles  of  perspective.  He  has  arrived,  as 
I  far  as  drawing  is  concerned,  to  the  period  of 

the  adult.  ■• 

The  stages  of  graphic  development  are  not  a 
result  of  a  completely  independent  development 

1  Luquet,  Op.  cit.,  p.  225. 


ANALYSIS  OF  THE  DRAWING  PRODUCT       77 

of  the  child ;  imitation  and  teaching  must  be  taken 
into  consideration  as  adding  or  even  interfering 
with  the  natural  gifts.  It  is  very  possible  to  de- 
limit stages  which  show  the  degree  of  conformity 
to  the  ideals  of  instruction.1  Thorndike1  has 
constructed  a  scale  which  attempts  to  measure  a 
child's  achievement  in  drawing.  The  scale  is 
composed  of  fourteen  typical  drawings  taken 
from  Kerschensteiner's  Die  Entwickelung  der  Zeich- 
nerischen  Begabung.  The  fourteen  sample  draw- 
ings range  in  merit  by  approximately  equal  steps 
from  o  up  to  17.  The  drawings  of  a  child  or  of  a 
class  may  be  compared  to  the  sample  drawings  of 
the  scale  and  the  degree  of  achievement  estimated 
accordingly. 

BecterewJ  gives  a  list  of  ten  objective  character- 
istics by  which  children's  drawings  may  be  judged. 
The  list  includes  such  factors  as  the  degree  of 
regularity  of  lines,  relative  complexity,  degree  of 
imitation,  time  required  for  observation,  coherence 
of  related  events,  completeness  of  execution, 
creative  power,  permanent  and  temporary  indi- 
vidual peculiarities. 

Whatever  pedagogical  values  are  derived  from 
an  analysis  of  the  stages  of  drawing  must  take 

1See  Stiehler,  Psychologie  und  Methodik  des  Zeichenun- 
terrichts,  pp.  18-21. 

1  Thorndike,  The  Measurement  of  Achievement  in  Draw- 
ing, 1913. 

•  Becterew,  Objektive  Psychologie,  1913,  p.  392, 


78  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  DRAWING 

into  consideration  the  individual  child  as  well  as 
the  group.  The  individual  child  not  only  is 
likely  to  differ  markedly  from  other  children  of 
his  own  age,  but  is  variable  in  his  own  develop- 
ment. Periods  of  regress  to  former  stages  are 
frequent.  Old  schemas  which  have  been  dis- 
carded in  favor  of  visual  representation  reappear 
for  extended  periods  of  time.  The  situation  is 
further  complicated  by  the  common  appearance 
of  mixed  stages  in  which  the  drawings  of  the 
child  have  characteristics  from  both  earlier  and 
later  stages.  Disposition,  mood,  and  physio- 
logical condition  affect  the  type  of  drawing.  If 
interested  and  animated,  the  child  uses  one  type 
of  representation;  if  distrait  or  fatigued,  another 
type.  The  calm,  logical,  positive  child  draws 
more  exactly  and  talks  less ;  the  brilliant,  imagina- 
tive child  sketches  freely  and  supplies  the  details 
orally.1     As  Luquet2  says: 

"The  theoretical  distinction  which  we  have 
indicated  among  the  four  ages  of  drawing  is.,  in 
fact,  much  less  sharp;  each  period  is  prolonged 
after  the  following  period  has  commenced;  in 
particular,  not  only  with  the  child,  but  equally 
with,  the  adult,  more  or  less  sporadic  traces  of 
logical  realism  persist  in  the  drawings  of  indi- 
viduals who  have  arrived  consciously  to  the 
phase  of  visual  realism." 


1  Rouma,  Op.  cit.,  p.  134. 
'Luquet,  Op.  cit.,  p.  228. 


ANALYSIS  OF  THE  DRAWING  PRODUCT       79 


777.  Drawing  as  a  Form  of  Language. 

The  statement  that  "drawing  is  not  an  art  for 
children,  but  a  language"1  is  found  in  some  form 
in  practically  every  work  on  children's  drawings. 
The  earlier  studies  as  usual  give  more  attention 
to  groups  than  to  individuals.  The  following 
frequently  quoted  comparison  is  from  Lukens:1 

"The  development  of  drawing  should  show 
the  same  stages  as  the  development  of  speech 
— suggested  as  follows: 


Speech 

1.  Automatic  cries  and  re- 
flex or  impulsive  sounds. 

2.  Imitation  of  sound,  but 
without  meaning;  child  bab- 
bles back  when  addressed. 

3.  Understands  words,  but 
does  not  speak  beyond  such 
words  as  "mama,"  "papa," 
etc. 

4.  Repeats  words  as  mere 
sounds  when  they  are  said 
to  him. 

5.  Uses  words  to  express 
his  thoughts. 

6.  Studies  grammar  and 
rhetoric. 


Drawing. 

1.  Automatic  and  aimless 
scribble. 

2.  Scribbling  localizations 
and  imitation  of  movements 
of  other  persons'  hands. 

3.  Understands  pictures, 
but  does  not  draw  beyond 
the  simplest  localization  of 
features  by  scribbling. 

4.  Copies  from  others  to 
see  how  to  get  the  right  ef- 
fects in  the  use  of  lines. 

5.  Picture-writing,  illus- 
trated stories,  scenes,  etc. 

6.  Studies  technique  of 
drawing,  perspective,  pro- 
portion, shading,  etc. 


1  Levinstein,  Kinderzeichnungen,  1905. 
1  Lukens,  A  Study  of  Children's  Drawings  in  the  Earlier 
Years,  1896. 


80  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  DRAWING 

It  is  undoubtedly  true  that  the  first  two  stages 
mentioned  above  have  a  common  basis  in  the 
impulses  of  play  and  imitation.  From  this  point 
on  the  comparison  loses  its  significance,  because 
the  characteristics  given  to  the  last  four  stages  of 
drawing  are  not  typical  of  its  genetic  development. 
The  biographical  studies  of  Luquet1  show  that 
during  this  period  the  development  of  drawing  is 
characterized  by  the  method  of  "expressing  real- 
ism." Language,  on  the  other  hand,  tends  to 
become  more  and  more  abstract.2  The  child's 
free  drawing  is  always  individualistic,  while  his 
language  is  dominated  by  social  convention.  In 
the  earlier  stages  there  are  many  parallels  between 
the  two  forms  of  expression.  In  the  later  stages 
drawing  diverges  in  one  direction  toward  the  con- 
crete, while  language  diverges  in  another  toward 
the  abstract.  This  may  be  illustrated  by  refer- 
ence to  studies  in  the  racial  development  of  draw- 
ing. 

Haddon's3  biological  study  of  the  evolution  of 
drawing  shows  that: 

"There  are  certain  needs  of  man  which  appear 
to  have  constrained  him  to  artistic  effort;  these 
may  conveniently  be  grouped  under  the  four 
terms  of  Art,  Information,  Wealth,  and  Relig- 
ion. 


1  See  previous  section. 

1  Meumann,  Experimentelle  Padagogik,  II,  p.  693. 

•Haddon,  Evolution  in  Art,  1914. 


ANALYSIS  OF  THE  DRAWING  PRODUCT      81 

"Art. — Aesthetics  is  the  study  or  practice  of 
art  for  art's  sake,  for  the  sensuous  pleasure  of 
form,  line,  and  color. 

"Information. — In  order  to  convey  informa- 
tion from  one  man  to  another,  when  oral  or 
gesture  language  is  impossible,  recourse  must  be 
had  to  pictorial  signs  of  one  form  or  another." 
Here  it  is  seen  that  drawing  serves  as  a  language 
when   its   chief   purpose   is  primarily   to   con\ey 
information.     Let  us  note  what  happens  in  the 
development  of  pictorial  signs  as  a  form  of  lang- 
uage.    Haddon*  gives  the  following  stages: 

1.  Pictographs.  Pictures  or  actual  repre- 
sentations of  objects. 

2.  Ideograms.  Pictorial  symbols,  which  are 
used  to  suggest  objects  or  abstract  ideas. 

Phonograms.     Graphic  symbols  of  sounds. 

3.  Verbal  Signs,  representing  entire  words. 

4.  Syllabic  Signs,  which  stand  for  the  articu- 
lations of  which  words  are  composed. 

5.  Alphabetic  Signs  or  Letters,  which  repre- 
sent the  elementary  sounds  into  which  the 
syllable  can  be  resolved. 

The  development  proceeds  from  the  individual 
and  concrete  to  the  conventional  and  abstract. 
The  pictograph  is  the  individual's  own  representa- 
tion of  the  salient  features  of  some  object;  the 
ideogram  and  the  phonogram  still  carry  something 
of  visual  appearance,  but  have  become  conven- 
tionalized by  social  repetition,  while  verbal, 
syllabic,    and    alphabetical    signs    have    lost    all 


82  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  DRAWING 

semblance  of  visual  representation.  "The  less 
the  picture  became  like  what  it  was  intended  to 
represent,  the  more  useful  it  became  as  a  means 
for  conveying  thought."1 

Contrast  with  this  the  development  of  the 
child's  drawing  in  our  present  social  organization. 
(After  Luquet  and  Kerschensteiner.) 

1.  Synthetic  Incapacity.  Graphic  juxtaposi- 
tion of  what  the  child  knows. 

2.  Schemata.  Symbolic  representation  of 
what  the  child  knows.  Conventionalized  and 
generic. 

3.  Visual  Coherence.  Imitates  individual  ap- 
pearance, but  contains  schematic  features. 

4.  Two-dimensional  Representation.  Visual 
representation  which  lacks  perspective. 

5.  Visual  Realism.  Perfect  visual  represen- 
tation of  the  individual  object. 

S  The  entire  trend  of  drawing  as  representation  is 
from  the  general  and  abstract  toward  the  specific 
and  concrete,  just  the  opposite  from  the  develop- 

\ment  of  drawing  as  a  form  of  language.  It  is 
evident  from  the  above  that  drawing  is  most  like 
language  at  the  second  stage,  when  symbolic  or 
generic  drawings  are  the  rule.  Luquet2  questions 
the  advantage  of  the  achievement  of  artificial 
education  in  substituting  visual  for  logical  realism 


1  Haddon,  Op.  cit.,  p.  221. 

2  Luquet,  Les  Dessins  d'un  Enfant,  p.  247. 


ANALYSIS  OF  THE  DRAWING  PRODUCT      83 

in  drawing.  The  drawing  which  permits  the 
exhibition  of  a  series  of  facts  in  a  condensed  theater 
of  action  deserves  serious  consideration  before 
being  discouraged. 

It  is  undoubtedly  true  that  the  emphasis  of  our 
education  upon  the  visual  in  drawing  has  dis- 
couraged children  from  continuing  their  efforts  at 
logical  drawing.  It  remains  only  in  the  incidental 
construction  of  the  analytical  drawing.  It  is 
here  that  drawing  continues  to  parallel  language. 
Analytical  drawing  is  characterized  by  logical  and 
generic  representation.  This  fact  is  of  importance 
to  our  consideration  of  laboratory  procedure;  it 
suggests  why  analytical  drawing  and  description 
are  relatively  interchangeable  and  why  either  of 
these  devices  is  preferable  to  representative  draw- 
ing. 

Drawing  presents  its  parallels  to  language  before 
it  yields  to  the  domination  of  visual  reality. 
Rouma1  has  made  a  detailed  study  of  this  early 
period  of  the  child's  life  with  reference  to  the 
drawing-language.  He  describes  four  general  tend- 
encies which,  with  considerable  individual  varia- 
tion and  complexity,  appear  in  chronological 
order.     A  summary  follows: 

1.  Indicative  Tendency.  The  child  makes  a 
mark  and  indicates  orally  what  it  means.  Each 
sign  stands  for  some  unit  in  the  total  drawing. 

1  Rouma,  Le  Langage  Graphique,  pp.  131-154. 


84  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  DRAWING 

The  child  draws  a  man  and  as  she  marks  says, 
"This  is  the  nose,"  "Here  is  the  mouth,"  etc. 
Visual  representation  is  entirely  lacking  in  the 
pure  type.  The  lines  do  not  exteriorize,  but 
seem  to  fix  the  characteristics  in  the  mind  of 
the  child. 

2.  Descriptive  Tendency.  Visual  representa- 
tion enters  into  the  drawings.  The  general 
form  is  greatly  simplified,  but  fairly  exact  and 
the  parts  are  relatively  in  proper  position.  The 
representation  is  semi-ideographic  and  shows  in 
a  descriptive  way  what  the  child  knows  about 
the  object. 

3.  Narrative  Tendency.  The  child  draws  a 
number  of  diverse  characters  and  representations 
which  he  unites  into  a  story  by  oral  comment. 
The  drawings  are  partially  indicative,  but  the 
child  comprehends  their  representative  value. 
In  the  earlier  stages  of  this  tendency  oral  state- 
ment plays  the  leading  part;  later  it  is  used  only 
to  unite  the  various  scenes  of  the  story.  The 
drawings  are  general  in  character,  the  details 
being  expressed  orally.  The  individual  draw- 
ings frequently  are  distinguished  by  a  single 
characteristic  attitude.  The  drawings  seem  to 
exteriorize  the  story  and  facilitate  the  narra- 
tive. 

4.  The  Drawing-Language  at  Its  Height.  Bet- 
ter technique  and  more  sustained  attention 
favor  the  composition  of  scenes.  The  child 
becomes  animated.  He  speaks  in  a  high  voice. 
He  completes  the  imperfections  of  his  drawing 
orally,  by  gesture,  by  facial  expression.  His 
characters  speak,  move,  have  life.  The  indi- 
vidual lines  have  greater  representative  value, 


ANALYSIS  OF  THE  DRAWING  PRODUCT      85 

but  there  is  a  distinct  tendency  to  simplify 
the  drawing  as  a  whole.  The  non-useful  de- 
tails are  reduced,  while  the  characteristic  fea- 
ture is  frequently  exaggerated.  The  child  tends 
to  conventionalize  his  drawings  by  progressive 
simplification  when  he  uses  the  same  charac- 
ters in  successive  scenes. 


Chapter  V 

STUDIES     IN    THE    ANALYSIS    OF    THE 
DRAWING  ACT 

The  analysis  of  the  drawing  product  given  in 
the  preceding  chapter  calls  attention  to  individual 
variations  in  the  drawing  ability,  but  fails  to  ex- 
plain the  causes  of  difference.  The  present  chap- 
ter gives  a  review  of  the  results  of  recent  attempts 
to  make  such  an  explanation  upon  the  basis  of  an 
experimental    analysis    of    the   drawing    activity. 

I.  Analysis  of  the  Act  of  Drawing  (Albien1). 

The  complete  act  of  drawing  is  composed  of 
two  major  processes  which  are  quite  distinct.  It 
consists  of  an  optical -perceptual  process  and  a 
motor-graphic  part,  each  of  which  is  composed  of 
subordinate  partial  processes.  In  the  optical- 
perceptual  process  the  eye  receives  the  sensory 
stimuli  from  the  object  in  view  and  the  mind 
assimilates  the  perceived  impression  on  the  basis 
of  previously  acquired  experience  with  similar 
sensory  material.  In  the  motor-graphic  process 
the  hand  is  set  in  motion  to  reproduce  the  per- 
ceived and  more  or  less  worked  over  visual  image 
of  the  original  object.  The  partial  processes 
which  enter  into  the  optical -perceptual  part  of 

Albien,  Behalten  und  Wiedergabe  einfacher  Formen, 
1907. 

87 


88  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  DRAWING 

the   drawing   activity   show   the   following   char- 
acteristics: 

1.  Purely  Optical  Process.  This  includes  the 
fixation  of  the  eye  upon  the  object  and  the  imaging 
of  the  object  upon  the  retina. 

2.  Sensational  Process.  This  embraces  the  pas- 
sive taking  in  of  the  specially  disposed  sensations 
of  brightness,  color,  surface  distributions,  etc. 
It  may  also  include  the  sensations  of  accompany- 
ing eye  and  hand  movements. 

3.  Awakening  of  Percepts  Which  Tend  to  be 
Present  and  Apperception.  The  previously  ac- 
quired percepts  of  similar  sensation  complexes 
which  are  at  hand  become  actual.  The  object  is 
grasped  in  consciousness,  recognized,  identified, 
and  interpreted  as  the  particular  object  present. 

4.  Assimilation.  These  apperceived  ideas  (3) 
assimilate  immediately  with  the  passively  taken 
in  impressions  (2),  causing  them  to  become  active 
in  consciousness. 

5.  Secondary  Reproduction  of  Earlier  Associa- 
tions.  Reproductions  of  formerly  acquired  con- 
cepts and  judgments  of  similar  appearing  objects 
enter  the  mind.  The  conceptual  activity  devi- 
ates somewhat  from  the  object  present  and  other 
ideas  enter  the  mind  and  assimilate  with  the 
objective  impression.  These  related  ideas  may 
fuse  unconsciously  into  our  interpretation  of  the 
perceived  object,  or  they  may  assume  a  free  rela- 
tion which  leads  to  reflection  by  contrast  and  com- 


ANALYSIS  OF  THE  DRAWING  ACT  89 

parison  and  ultimately  to  our  highest  understand- 
ing of  the  object. 

6.  Preconceived  Observation.  The  five  partial 
processes  just  defined  are  all  modified  by  the  or- 
iginal purpose  of  the  observation  of  the  object. 
If  the  purpose  is  to  make  a  complete  and  thorough 
examination  of  the  object,  the  activity  of  each  of 
the  elemental  processes  will  be  markedly  different 
than  if  the  making  of  a  mere  sketch  be  in  mind. 
Through  the  preconceived  purpose  the  whole 
process  of  perception  is  given  a  particular  direc- 
tion, while  from  the  countless  number  of  possible 
concepts  which  rise  in  consciousness  a  definite 
selection  is  made.  Attention  directs  itself  pre- 
dominantly to  that  in  the  object  which  is  in  ac- 
cord with  our  purpose,  whether  we  are  conscious 
of  its  deviation  or  not.1 

Such  are  the  partial  processes  of  the  optical- 
perceptual  part  of  the  drawing  act.  Similarly, 
the  motor-graphical  part  of  drawing  is  composed 
of  subordinate  elements.  The  hand  is  controlled 
by  three  chief  factors. 

1.  Direction  by  the  Optical  Image.  When  the 
drawer  looks  away  from  the  object  of  observa- 
tion (and  always,  of  course,  when  he  is  drawing 
from  memory),  his  hand  is  guided  more  or  less 
by  the  visual  image  which  is  retained  in  memory. 
This  is,   moreover,   always  an   inwardly   worked 

*Judd  and  Cowling,  Studies  in  Perceptual  Development, 
Psychological  Review,  1897. 


90  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  DRAWING 

over  image,  subject  to  the  influence  of  any  one 
or  all  of  the  optical-perceptual  partial  processes. 
Some  drawers  examine  the  object  carefully  for 
several  moments,  study  it  more  or  less  analytically, 
then  draw  from  the  retained  image  without 
further  looking  at  the  object.  Other  drawers 
revive  their  waning  image  by  frequently  recurring 
glances  at  the  object. 

2.  Kinesthetic  Control.  The  hand  is  controlled 
in  its  particular  movements  by  the  immediate 
kinesthetic  sensations  and  by  images  of  previous 
sensations.  Previous  experience  in  drawing  sim- 
ilar lines  gives  the  needed  muscular  control.  The 
kinesthetic  images  of  the  eye  or  hand  movements 
made  during  the  period  of  observation  may  also 
share  in  the  subjective  control  of  the  hand. 

3.  Control  by  Watching  Results.  The  appear- 
ance of  the  developing  drawing  is  used  as  a  means 
for  conscious  comparison  with  the  appearance  of 
the  original  object.  The  wayward  lines  are  cor- 
rected or  directed  accordingly. 

It  is  important  to  note,  as  Albien  has  empha- 
sized, that  the  preceding  optical-perceptual  pro- 
cess of  drawing  varies  individually  in  its  composi- 
tion, its  components,  and  the  significance  for  the 
whole  process.  With  one  individual  analytical 
observation  is  partial  and  inexact.  Another  ob- 
serves but  few  details,  but  observes  these  details 
minutely.  One  individual  quickly  gives  over  to 
the  play  of  his  secondary  associations  or  reflec- 


ANALYSIS  OF  THE  DRAWING  ACT  91 

tions,  while  another  adheres  more  closely  to  the 
given  objective  impressions  and  makes  but  little 
individual  interpretation. 

As  with  the  individual  behavior  of  the  percep- 
tual part  of  the  act  of  drawing,  so  are  the  indi- 
vidual processes  which  control  the  hand.  With 
one  drawer  the  hand  is  guided  more  by  the  visual 
image,  while  with  another  it  is  guided  by  the 
assistance  of  the  imagination  or  reflection.  With 
one  individual  the  hand  follows  point  by  point 
the  exact  analytical  observation  of  the  object. 
With  another  it  follows  the  schema  acquired 
from  some  similar  object.  Finally,  with  indi- 
viduals of  strong  motor  inclination,  the  motor 
images  of  the  eye  or  hand  movements  may  equal 
or  for  a  time  predominate  over  the  visual  image. 

These  general  considerations  of  drawing  which 
rest  upon  experimental  analysis  show  that  correct- 
ness and  originality  in  the  execution  of  drawing 
may  depend  upon  extraordinarily  varied  factors. 
It  now  remains  to  discuss  the  manner  in  which 
these  partial  processes  act  together  in  different 
individuals.  Individual  drawers  may  be  classi- 
fied by  the  difficulties  which  they  encounter  in 
the  act  of  graphic  representation,  or  by  the  gifts 
which  they  possess  for  successful  drawing. 

II.  Perceptual  Development  (Judd  and  Cowling1). 
Judd  and  Cowling1  find  that  subjects  attempt- 
ing to  reproduce  a  simple  figure  after  an  exposure 

1  Op.  cit. 

8  See  Chapter  II  for  method. 


92  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  DRAWING 

of  ten  seconds  exhibit  two  types  of  perceptual 
development.  One  type  gets  an  early  mastery  of 
the  general  form  and  a  later  mastery  of  the  de- 
tails. The  second  type  begins  immediately  to 
master  the  details  of  the  figure  to  the  temporary- 
neglect  of  the  general  form.  This  same  experi- 
ment gives  striking  evidence  of  the  complexity 
of  the  perceptual  process  and  of  the  variations 
existing  among  different  individuals.  It  is1*  very 
significant  that  repeated  exposures  and  continued 
analytical  study  is  necessary  before  the  percep- 
tion of  a  simple  figure  is  mastered.  Correct 
temporary  memory  of  one  part  of  the  figure  be- 
comes vague  when  attention  is  directed  to  another 
part. 

III.  Drawing  Types  (Albien1). 

Albien's  carefully  conducted  experiments2  indi- 
cate that  wide  variations  exist  between  individual 
drawers,  who  tend  to  approach  more  or  less  closely 
one  of  two  sharply  distinguished  extreme  types. 

I.  Visual  Type.  Appears  in  many  gradations 
according  to  the  share  played  by  apperception. 
This  type  has  a  clear  visual  image  and  holds  more 
to  the  direct  objective  impressions.  There  are 
two  chief  sub-types: 

(a)  The    subject    perceives    a    clear    visual 
image,   but  permits  apperception  and  associa- 


^p.  cit. 

2  See  Chapter  II. 


ANALYSIS  OF  THE  DRAWING  ACT  93 

tion  to  enter  little  or  not  at  all  into  activity. 
The  image  is  therefore  transitory.  The  subject 
may  be  a  good  copy  drawer,  but  fails  to  draw 
well  from  memory. 

(b)  The  subject  has  a  clear  visual  image.  He 
assimilates  the  impression  and  seeks  through 
analysis  and  subsequent  synthesis  to  make  the 
impression  conspicuous.  This  subject  is  a  good 
drawer. 

2.  Constructive  Type.  The  subject  has  a  visual 
image  which  is  but  little  imprinted.  He  depends 
upon  reflection  and  subjective  construction  for 
the  (memory)  drawing.  The  original  image  is 
altered  in  the  drawing.  The  success  of  the  draw- 
ing depends  upon  the  subject's  mental  power  for 
correct  association  and  reflection.  If  not  accom- 
panied by  analytical  observation,  the  drawing  is 
a  failure. 

Samples  of  the  above  types  may  he  shown  by 
giving  the  reactions  of  several  of  the  subjects  of 
Albien's  research. 

1.  Extreme  Visual  Type.  Franz  G.,  9  years. 
Ranks  29  in  a  class  of  49. 

Very  lively,  enters  into  the  experiment  with 
great  zeal.  Attempts  to  draw  a  figure  which 
has  been  exposed  ten  seconds  with  his  eye  held 
upon  the  fixation  point  in  the  center  of  the 
figure.  Interesting  to  observe  how  he  stops 
abruptly  after  the  first  stroke  and  draws  no 
further.  "The  image  has  disapppeared."  He 
draws  with  rapid,  precise  strokes.     He  observes 


94  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  DRAWING 

a  figure  at  his  leisure,  then  draws  it  from  mem- 
ory. Says,  "The  image  hangs  in  my  head." 
He  retains  the  "  whole  image"  very  well.  Num- 
erous objects  such  as  a  barometer,  vase,  kaleido- 
scope, etc.,  are  exposed  for  ten — fifteen — twenty- 
five  seconds.  Franz  retains  the  characteristic 
form  and  draws  it  without  reconstruction. 
Looks  often  in  the  distance  while  drawing. 
Subject  is  markedly  visually  gifted  and  does 
not  help  himself  through  construction. 

2.  Constructive  Type  with  Some  Visual  Endow- 
ment. Paul  T.,  9  years.  Ranks  5  in  a  class  of 
49- 

Gives  precise  answers  to  all  questions.  "I 
cannot  do  that."  "I  do  not  see  sufficiently  for 
that."  Thinks  long  before  he  begins  to  draw 
(up  to  two  minutes);  then  draws  slowly,  but 
with  rapid,  precise  strokes.  For  one  memory 
drawing  he  observes  170  seconds;  for  the  other 
two,  relatively  a  short  time.  During  the  draw- 
ing from  the  model  his  eye  wanders  back  and 
forth.  During  the  study  he  makes  automatic 
movements  with  the  hand.  Sees  resemblances 
in  the  forms  of  the  copy  to  objects  with  which 
he  is  familiar.  He  is  an  example  of  the  con- 
struing type  who  helps  himself  considerably  by 
his  knowledge.  He  declares,  "he  marks  how 
the  lines  and  strokes  lie."  The  drawings  are 
good. 

3.  Extreme  Constructive  Type.  Karl  Sch.,  15 
years.  First  in  general  intelligence  in  a  class  of 
43.  * 


ANALYSIS  OF  THE  DRAWING  ACT  95 

The  performance  of  this  pupil  with  good  intel- 
ligence (first  of  forty-three)  is  poorer  than  that 
of  many  younger  children  with  weak  intelli- 
gence. In  the  drawing  after  fixed  seeing  he 
first  gazes  in  the  distance.  One  can  see  from 
the  movements  of  the  muscles  of  his  eyes  and 
forehead  that  he  is  meditating.  Upon  ques- 
tioning he  states  that  he  is  reflecting  upon  the 
relations.  He  does  not  succeed  with  the  mem- 
ory drawing;  an  argument  that  he  has  no  visual 
image  and  that  his  mental  power  is  unable  to 
supply  the  deficiency  through  reflection.  When 
he  makes  the  drawing  from  the  model  he  draws 
precisely  and  in  a  shorter  time.  Upon  ques- 
tioning he  says  that  he  forms  the  drawing  by 
combination  of  the  separate  parts,  reflects  on 
the  relations,  and  thinks  of  similar  appearing 
objects.  Makes  four  successive  attempts  to 
draw  the  same  figure  after  ten-second  exposures 
with  eyes  on  a  fixation  point.  Fails  each  time. 
The  subject  is  of  the  constructive  type  with 
weak  optical  endowment. 

Albien  compared  his  subjects  by  means  of 
tachistoscopical  reading  tests  with  Messmer's 
objective    and    subjective    reading    types.1    He 


Objective  Type 

Subjective  Type 

I. 

Rigid  fixation. 

I. 

Fluctuating   attention. 

2. 

Relatively  small  scope  of 

2. 

Relatively  large  scope  of 

attention. 

attention. 

3- 

Attention     directed      to 

3- 

Attention  directed  to  in- 

periphery. 

terior. 

4- 

Objective  fidelity^ 

4- 

Subjective       interpretive 
tendency. 

1  Messmer,  Zur  Psychologie  des  Lesens  bei  Kindern  und 
Erwachsenen. 


96  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  DRAWING 

announces  marked  similarities  between  the  visual 
drawing  type  and  Messmer's  objective  type, 
and  between  the  constructive  drawing  type  and 
Messmer's  subjective  type.  The  German  word 
kriegfiihrenden  was  exposed  successively  by  means 
of  a  tachistoscope  for  a  fraction  of  a  second. 
The  subjects  endeavored  to  write  the  word,  or  as 
much  of  it  as  possible,  immediately  after  each 
exposure.     The  results  follow: 


Paul  E.,  Constructive  Type. 

Franz  G.t  Visual 

Type. 

-kriegfiihrenden- 

I. 

kriegfordern 

1.  -g 

2. 

kriegfahren 

2.  -r.g.- 

3- 

kriegfordern 

3.  -fiir- 

4- 

kriegfordern 

4.  -ftir.r- 

5- 

kriegfarchen 

5.  kr.-fu- 

6. 

kriegfuhren 

6.  kr-g- 

7- 

kriegfuhren 

7.  -fiihr-en 

8. 

kriegfarchen 

8.  h-g  f  iihr-k 

9- 

kriegfnrchen 

9.  krieg-    , 

10. 

kriegftirden 

10.  krieg-r 

ii. 

kriegfiireln 

Thinks  he  can 

make 

12. 

kriegfahrnden 

nothing  further  out 

13- 

kriegfarden 

of  it. 

14. 

kriegfuhren 

15. 

kriegftihrenden 

Albien  insists  that  thorough  observation  does 
not  depend  upon  objective  exactitude  alone,  but 
rather  upon  the  relation  set  up  between  the 
objectively  given  impression  and  the  conceptual 


ANALYSIS  OF  THE  DRAWING  ACT  97 

assimilation  which  follows  immediately.  If  the 
associations  and  ideas  which  come  about  by  re- 
flection crowd  out  or  misconstrue  the  objective 
impressions,  the  resultant  percept  and  eventual 
drawing  will  be  faulty  and  untrue.  Thus  the 
pure  constructive  type  gives  himself  over  too  soon 
to  subjective  interpretation  without  at  first  seeing 
clearly.  The  pure  visual  type  permits  his  com- 
prehension to  be  circumscribed  by  the  objective 
characteristics  of  the  object  so  that  he  fails  to 
perceive  it  in  the  light  of  his  previous  knowledge. 
The  best  type  of  observation  for  purposes  of 
drawing  (or,  as  we  shall  emphasize  later,  for 
purposes  of  scientific  interpretation)  is  based  upon 
a  proper  union  of  objective  seeing  and  subjective 
contemplation. 

IV.  Difficulties  in  Drawing  (Meumann1). 

A  large  share  of  present  literature  takes  the 
common  point  of  departure  that  difficulties  in 
drawing  arise  from  two  causes.  The  poor  drawer 
cannot  see  correctly,  or  he  fails  in  skill  of  hand. 
Meumann  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  he  has 
found  individuals  who  possess  excellent  sight  and  . 
great  skill  of  hand  who  cannot  draw.  Meumann 
gave  a  number  of  experimental  tests1  to  determine 
the  causes  of  individual  variation  in  drawing. 
He  found  many  causes  for  poor  drawing  and  a 
number  of  types  of  drawers. 

1  Meumann,  Experimented  Padagogik. 
■  See  Chapter  II. 


98  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  DRAWING 

The  "seeing"  of  most  men  who  are  not  painters 
or  drawers  by  occupation  is  in  no  manner  an 
analyzing  and  discerning  seeing.1  The  object  of 
their  seeing  is  not  that  of  making  themselves 
reliably  trustworthy  with  the  form  and  colors  of 
objects,  but  at  best  only  to  recognize  the  things, 
to  connect  the  objects  with  the  words  commonly 
used  in  naming  them,  or  to  learn  to  know  with 
certainty  the  characteristics  of  things  needful  for 
the  practical  employments  of  life.  Few  realize 
how  inaccurate  is  their  knowledge  of  the  form 
and  color  of  the  most  familiar  objects.  Ask  them 
to  draw  a  postage  stamp  or  the  picture  6f  a  friend 
from  memory,  and  they  assert  that  they  know 
the  thing  sufficiently,  but  cannot  draw  it.  Chal- 
lenge them  then  to  describe  the  appearance  of 
the  stamp,  and  for  the  most  part,  to  their  sur- 
prise, they  fail  lamentably.  What  is  the  cause  of 
these  failures?  This  question  may  be  best 
answered  by  presenting  a  list  of  the  difficulties 
found  in  memory  drawing. 

It  should  be  noted  here  that  the  memory  is 
involved  in  drawing  even  when  the  object  is  in 
sight.  The  drawer  must  keep  the  mental  image 
in  mind  at  least  while  actually  drawing.  He,  of 
course,  keeps  the  mental  image  from  disappear- 
ing or  changing  greatly  by  constant  return  to  the 
object.     Unless  he  can  get  the  general  outline  of 

1  Meumann,  Op.  cit.,  p.  719. 


ANALYSIS  Of  THE  DRAWING  ACT  99 

the  object  fairly  well  imaged  and  retained  in 
memory,  he  is  very  likely  to  have  the  not  uncom- 
mon difficulty  of  being  unable  to  make  the  de- 
tailed parts  of  his  drawing  fit  into  a  uniform 
whole.  The  following  difficulties  come  to  light 
most  clearly  during  attempts  at  memory  drawing. 

1.  The  will  to  see  analytically  has  not  been 
aroused.  In  the  case  of  most  drawers  who  have 
never  received  drawing  instruction,  the  will  for 
careful  notation  of  the  specific  form  and  colors  of 
things  is  not  present. 

2.  In  spite  of  the  will  to  see  analytically  the 
drawer  cannot  make  a  correct  analysis.  He 
lacks  the  power  of  discrimination  between  the  gen- 
eral setting  and  the  minor  details. 

3.  Defective  visual  memory  images.  The 
drawer  has  a  deficient  sense  of  form,  particularly 
as  to  indistinctness  and  incompleteness.  Despite 
exhaustive  observation,  he  retains  no  definite 
visual  memory  of  form,  color,  or  space  situations. 

4.  Lack  of  ability  to  hold  the  visual  memory 
image  in  attention  while  drawing.  When  the 
drawer  turns  his  attention  to  the  act  of  drawing, 
the  mental .  image  becomes  dim  or  disappears 
entirely. 

5.  Lack  of  co-ordination  of  the  visual  image 
with  the  execution  of  the  drawing  movements. 
The  drawer  cannot  guide  the  hand  according  to 
the  dictates  of  the  visual  image. 


loo  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  Oi?  DRAWING 

6.  The  memory  image  is  disturbed  by  the 
sight  of  the  beginning  drawing  and  by  the  incon- 
gruity between  this  and  the  design  existing  in 
the  imagination  of  the  drawer.  This  is  common 
with  unpracticed  drawers. 

7.  The  lack  of  acquired  drawing  designs  (sche- 
mata). The  trained  drawer  acquires  a  mass  of 
schemata  by  which  he  can  produce  a  schema  of  an 
animal,  a  flower,  or  a  house,  quickly  upon  paper. 
This  serves  as  a  support  for  the  representation  of 
his  memory  images  and  he  gradually  modifies 
the  schema  until  it  corresponds  to  that  which  he 
would  express.  Many  drawers  who  are  deficient 
in  schemata  and  can  draw  well  from  another 
drawing  cannot  draw  from  an  object. 

8.  Lack  of  dexterity  or  skill  of  hand.  The 
drawer  is  unable  to  make  a  straight  or  curved 
line  satisfactorily. 

9.  Lack  of  knowledge  of  the  projection  of  tri- 
dimensional space  upon  a  flat  surface. 

10.  Defective  artistic  sense  interferes  with  the 
individualistic  aesthetic  treatment  of  drawing. 

11.  These  defects  may  be  found  in  different 
combinations  in  different  individuals.1 

V.  Types  of  Retention  (Meumann2). 
Finally,  we  may  examine  certain  types  of  re- 
tention   in    drawing.     No    two    individuals    are 

1  Meumann  believes  that  2,  3,  4,  and  5  are  defects  of 
nature  and  that  the  others  are  due  to  training. 

2  Op.  cit. 


ANALYSIS  OF  THE  DRAWING  ACT  101 

exactly  alike,  but  it  is  possible  as  well  as  profit- 
able to  describe  a  number  of  characteristic  types 
of  retention  in  drawing.  Whether  we  are  inter- 
ested in  drawing  from  the  aesthetic,  the  repre- 
sentative, or  the  scientific  point  of  view,  accurate 
knowledge  of  the  type  of  retention  of  the  pupil  is 
of  the  greatest  importance.  The  following  analy- 
sis is  based  upon  Meumann's  experiments  with 
eleven  adults.1 

1.  The  completedly  untrained  drawer.  The 
subject  has  few  drawing  concepts  and  shows  con- 
spicuously that  a  certain  knowledge  of  the  pure 
technique  of  drawing,  regardless  of  all  endowment, 
is  necessary.  Some  idea  of  the  manner  of  repre- 
sentation is  necessary  before  an  actual  "drawing" 
can  be  produced.  The  subject  draws  a  pure 
schematic  sketch  and  cannot  represent  other- 
wise. This  type  of  drawing  resembles  that  of 
many  young  children  and  that  of  primitive  peoples. 

2.  The  subject  (drawing  from  memory)  supports 
himself  exclusively  by  the  image  of  the  object 
without  supplementing  this  by  additions  accord- 
ing to  his  knowledge  or  conjecture.  The  drawing 
is  incomplete,  but  rests  upon  absolutely  pure 
visual  retention. 

3.  Similar  to  the  preceding  type,  save  that  the 
image  is  supported  by  knowledge  and  reflection. 


See  Chapter  II. 


102  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OP  DRAWING 

If  the  perspective  course  of  the  lines  is  not  clear 
in  the  visual  image,  it  is  reconstructed  in  thought. 

4.  This  type  has  such  a  weak  visual  memory 
that  he  yields  completely  to  reflection  and  con- 
struction of  the  object. 

5.  The  subject  possesses  numerous  drawing 
schemata.  He  knows  objects  similar  to  the  object 
and  for  the  most  part  works  with  them.  Thus 
he  does  not  represent  the  individual  character- 
istics of  the  original  objects.  His  drawing  tech- 
nically is  very  complete.  (It  seems  that  profes- 
sionally trained  drawers  incline  to  this  type  of 
retention.) 

6.  This  type,  like  the  child,  gets  a  completed 
schema  at  once  from  the  objecc.  It  is,  however, 
generic,  not  specific.  He  draws  a  general  cigar 
box,  not  the  one  before  him. 

7.  The  specifically  artistic  type.  He  charac- 
terizes his  drawings  through  a  habitual  leaning  to 
the  artistic  working  of  the  object.  He  seeks  upon 
this  basis  to  get  a  certain  aesthetic  effect  out  of 
the  object.  This  tendency  may  show  itself  in 
unskilled  drawers  and  is  relatively  independent 
of  skill  of  hand  and  acquired  schemata. 

8.  Finally,  is  the  subject  who  draws  better  from 
memory  than  after  the  model.  He  depends  upon 
his  numerous  visual  memory  images.  He  has 
formed  the  habit  of  impressing  himself  with  the 


ANALYSIS  OF  THE  DRAWING  ACT  103 

visual  appearance,  or  he  possesses  that  exceptional 
"adventitious  retention"  in  high  degree. 

Karrenberg1  found  that  children  of  nine  and  ten 
years  of  age  under  the  influence  of  systematic 
training  were  enabled  to  double  their  ability  in 
representative  drawing. 


1  Karrenberg,  Der  Mensch  als  Zeichenobject,  1910. 


PART  III 
EXPERIMENTS  AND  CONCLUSIONS   . 


Chapter  VI 
THE  EXPERIMENTS 

Attention  was  called  in  Chapter  I  to  the  fact  that 
laboratory  work  in  science  teaching  has  three 
aims:  the  observation  of  material,  the  making  of 
records,  and  the  retention  of  learning,  and  that  it 
furthers  these  aims  by  three  devices:  represent- 
ative drawing,  description,  and  analytical  drawing. 
The  determination  of  the  character  of  the  various 
interrelations  of  these  factors,  and  the  psycho- 
logical analysis  of  drawing  were  set  as  the  prob- 
lems for  ultimate  solution.  The  intervening  sur- 
vey of  the  literature  of  drawing  has  been  devoted 
to  the  psychological  setting  of  these  two  prob- 
lems. The  present  chapter  will  present  a  series  of 
special  experiments  which  have  been  organized  to 
complete  the  analysis  of  the  various  factors  of 
laboratory  teaching. 

Experiment  I.     Representative   Drawing, 
Description,  and  Diagrammatic  Drawing. 

i.  Problem.  To  evaluate  the  correlation  be- 
tween ability  in  representative  drawing  and  abil- 
ity in  description  and  diagrammatic  drawing. 

2.  Method  of  Procedure.  The  special  tests  used 
for  this  problem  were  selected  after  numerous  pre- 
liminary  trials  which   were   necessary   to  adjust 

107 


108  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  DRAWING 

them  to  time  limitations  and  to  eliminate  direc- 
tions which  were  liable  to  misinterpretation.  It 
was  necessary  to  select  objects  for  the  various  tests 
which  were  approximately  equally  well  known  to 
the  different  subjects,  which  afforded  a  range  of 
difficulty  adapted  to  grading,  and  which  could  be 
finished  at  a  single  sitting. 

Test  No.  i.  Subjects.  51  students  in  a  first- 
year  high  school  class  in  General  Science. 

A  turkey  feather  (see  Figure  1)  was  selected 
for  this  test.  It  serves  as  a  good  object  for  draw- 
ing and  description,  while  its  finer  structure  is 
unknown  and  of  sufficient  intricacy  to  require  a 
satisfactory  amount  of  ingenuity  for  study  and 
diagramming.  Parts  of  the  feather  were  mounted 
on  microscopic  slides  and  focused  under  a  number 
of  microscopes  in  such  a  way  that  the  detail  of 
the  feather  was  equally  manifest  to  each  subject. 
The  following  preliminary  statement  was  made  to 
the  class  at  the  beginning  of  a  regular  laboratory 
period : 

"You  will  be  given  a  test  today  to  compare 
your  abilities  in  drawing,  description,  diagram- 
ming, and  laboratory  analysis.  The  work  will 
be  counted  as  a  regular  day's  work  in  elementary 
science,  but,  as  different  classes  are  to  be  com- 
pared, you  are  asked  to  do  your  best." 

Each  pupil  was  then  given  a  feather,  pencil, 
rubber,  paper,  and  a  sheet  of  directions  for  the 
first  part  of  the  test.    At  the  end  of  the  given 


F 


\ 


S 


I 


v 


THE  EXPERIMENTS  in 

time  the  first  records  were  collected  and  directions 
passed  for  the  second  part  of  the  test.  The  four 
parts  of  the  test  were  given  in  an  eighty-minute 
period.  All  of  the  tests  were  given  under  my 
personal  direction.  The  directions,  which  were 
given  out  one  part  at  a  time,  follow: 

Part  I.  Drawing.  (Materials:  eraser,  pencil, 
and  drawing  paper.) 

Write  your  name  and  the  number  of  your 
feather  at  the  top  of  the  page  of  drawing  paper. 

Place  the  feather  in  position  as  directed  and 
make  a  careful  drawing  of  it.  (Time  allowed, 
13  minutes.) 

Part  II.  Description.  (Materials:  pen,  ink, 
and  ruled  paper.) 

Write  your  name  and  the  number  of  the 
feather  at  the  top  of  the  page. 

Without  tearing  or  pulling  the  feather  apart 
in  any  way,  study  it  carefully  and  describe  it  so 
as  to  explain  as  much  as  possible  about  the 
feather  to  a  person  who  had  never  seen  one. 
(Time  allowed,  12  minutes.) 

Part  III.  Dissection  and  A  nalysis.  ( M aterials : 
same  as  II.) 

Write  your  name  at  the  top  of  each  page  of 
paper  used. 

Pursue  carefully  the  following  directions  and 
answer  the  questions  as  they  appear.  Do  not 
write  anything  except  the  answers. 

Examine  the  feather  again  and  note  that  it  is 
composed  of  a  central  axis  or  quill  and  an  ex- 
panded, flattened  part  called  the  web  or  vane. 
The  quill  is  divided  into  two  parts:    (a)    the 


112  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  DRAWING 

hollow,  rounded,  transparent  barrel,  which  is 
the  end  of  the  feather  that  is  attached  to  the 
body  of  the  bird,  and  which  has  no  attached 
parts,  and  (b)  the  shaft,  which  has  the  vane 
attached  to  its  sides.  Examine  the  surface  of 
the  vane  with  a  lens  and  note  that  it  is  com- 
posed of  a  series  of  side  branches  of  the  shaft 
which  lie  closely  parallel  to  one  another.  These 
side  branches  are  called  barbs. 

Question  I.  In  what  direction  do  the  barbs 
run  with  reference  to  the  shaft?  (Time  al- 
lowed, 10  minutes.) 

After  having  answered  Question  I,  tear  one 
of  the  barbs  loose  from  the  barbs  in  front  of 
and  behind  it.  Observe  that  it  is  similar  to 
the  one  which  has  been  mounted  for  micro- 
scopical examination.  Examine  the  mounted 
barb  under  the  low  power  of  the  microscope  and 
note  that  the  barb  has  a  long,  narrow  body  with 
two  opposite  rows  of  small,  more  or  less  united, 
branches  attached  to  it.  These  fine  branches  of 
the  barbs  are  called  barbules.  Note  that  the 
barbules  in  the  row  on  the  upper  side  of  the 
barb  have  a  number  of  smaller  branches  or  out- 
growths, which  gives  the  barbule  something  of 
a  bushlike  appearance.  These  smaller  out- 
growths are  called  hooks,  because  some  of  them 
have  little  hooks  at  the  end.  The  barbules  in 
the  row  on  the  lower  side  of  the  barb  do  not 
possess  these  smaller  branches.  Taking  the 
feather  as  a  whole,  then,  there  are  in  turn  a 
shaft  with  barbs  on  either  side;  each  barb  with 
a  row  of  barbules  on  either  side  and  every  upper 
barbule  with  a  number  of  hooks. 


THE  EXPERIMENTS  113 

Question  2.  If  each  of  the  barbules  possess- 
ing hooks  averaged  10  hooks  each,  how  would 
you  estimate  the  total  number  of  hooks  on  a 
feather?     (Time  allowed,  10  minutes.) 

Having  answered  Question  2,  pull  two  barbs 
apart  slowly  and  watch  carefully  what  happens. 
Examine  the  prepared  mount  of  a  section  of  the 
vane,  in  which  some  of  the  barbs  have  been 
partly  torn  apart.  Examine  the  torn  part  and 
other  parts  of  the  vane  in  this  mount  under  the 
low  power  of  the  microscope.  Note  again  that 
the  upper  row  of  barbules  terminates  in  clusters 
of  hooks,  while  the  barbules  running  back  into 
them  from  the  barb  just  ahead  do  not  have  the 
hooked  branches. 

Question  3.  Explain  in  detail  how  the  barbs 
are  held  together.     (Time  allowed,  15  minutes.) 

Part  IV.  Diagram.  (Materials:  eraser,  pen- 
cil, and  drawing  paper.) 

Write  your  name  at  the  top  of  the  page. 

Make  a  diagram  (several,  if  necessary)  show- 
ing the  relative  arrangement  of  the  shaft,  the 
barbs,  the  barbules,  and  the  hooks.  Label  it 
carefully.     (Time  allowed,  15  minutes.) 

Test  No.  2.     Subjects. 

Group  1 :  48  university  graduate  students. 

Group  2:  50  university  undergraduate  students. 

Group  3 :  30  university  undergraduate  students. 

Group  4:  31  university  undergraduate  students. 
Total,  159. 

Test  No.  2  is  essentially  a  repetition  of  the  parts 
of  Test  No.  1  which  measure  ability  in  represent- 


114  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  DRAWING 

ative  drawing  and  description.  The  single  varia- 
tion is  in  the  use  of  a  different  object  for  copy. 
Each  member  of  Group  I  was  given  similar  draw- 
ing materials  and  an  object  which  was  unfamiliar 
to  his  or  her  drawing  and  describing  experience. 
The  object  was  a  small  metal  spring-clip  (see 
Figure  2)  taken  from  the  stage  of  a  compound 
microscope.  The  students  were  directed  as  fol- 
lows: 

Part  I.  Write  your  name  at  the  top  of  the 
page  of  drawing  paper.  Place  the  object  in  the 
exact  position  as  directed  and  make  a  careful 
drawing  of  it.     (Time  allowed,  7  minutes.) 

Part  II.  Write  your  name  at  the  top  of  the 
page  of  drawing  paper.  Make  a  careful  written 
description  of  the  object.  (Time  allowed,  7 
minutes.) 

The  members  of  Groups  2,  3,  and  4  followed 
similar  directions,  using  different  objects  to 
copy.  Each  member  of  Groups  2  and  3  was 
given  a  flat,  triangular,  metallic  object  (see 
Figure  3)  which  will  be  referred  to  as  the  "tri- 
angle." Each  member  of  Group  4  was  given  a 
small  metallic  sash-lift  (see  Figure  4).  In  every 
case  one  drawing  and  one  description  of  the  same 
object  were  made  by  each  subject. 

3.  Methods  of  Scoring.  As  the  validity  of  the 
correlation  established  between  any  two  traits 
depends  upon  the  accuracy  of  the  original  meas- 
urements, great  care  has  been  used  to  insure  exact 


THE  EXPERIMENTS  1 15 

scoring  of  the  results  of  these  experiments.  Ten 
competent  markers  co-operated  in  scoring  the 
various  tests.  They  first  became  thoroughly 
familiar  with  the  various  tests  by  taking  them. 
They  were  then  carefully  instructed  in  the  system 
of  grading,  and  means  were  taken  to  insure  de- 
liberate and  painstaking  work.  It  is  believed  that 
ten  such  judges  are  of  greater  value  than  a  much 
larger  number  selected  from  a  group  of  persons 
who  are  strange  to  the  tests  and  more  or  less  indif- 
ferent to  the  results.  The  procedure  involved 
the  ranking  of  the  individual  members  of  each 
group  serially  in  order  of  the  merit  of  their  efforts. 
Thus  it  was  necessary  to  discover  which  one  of 
the  51  high  school  pupils  was  best  in  drawing, 
which  one  was  second,  and  so  on  down  to  the 
poorest. 

(a)  Method  of  Scoring  Drawings.  Each  draw- 
ing was  compared  directly  with  every  other  draw- 
ing of  the  same  group.  At  each  comparison  the 
drawing  which  was  superior  was  graded  'i/  and 
the  drawing  which  was  inferior,  '2'  When  all 
had  been  compared,  the  marks  for  each  drawing 
were  summed  and  the  total  recorded.  This  was 
done  by  each  of  the  ten  markers  and  the  final 
total  recorded  for  each  drawing.  Thus  each  draw- 
ing in  a  group  of  50  was  compared  with  the  other 
49  by  ten  different  judges  and  received  a  final 
mark  on   the   basis  of  490  individual  compari- 


ii6  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  DRAWING 

sons.  The  drawing  having  the  lowest  total,  i.  e., 
the  most  grades  of  %'  was  ranked  best;  the  one 
having  the  greatest  total  was  ranked  poorest, 
while  the  remaining  drawings  were  ranked  in 
between  according  to  the  size  of  their  total  score. 
The  markers  were  instructed  not  to  grade 
"ties,"  but  at  each  comparison  to  grade  one 
superior  and  the  other  inferior.  This  was  not  pro- 
ductive of  any  considerable  difficulty  and  insured 
the  use  of  greater  discrimination  on  the  part  of 
the  judges.  It  was  found  convenient  to  tally 
according  to  the  score-card  shown  on  page  117. 
The  score-card  exhibited  here  was  prepared  for  a 
group  of  30  drawings.  In  scoring,  the  drawings 
in  this  case  were  numbered  1  to  30.  Drawing 
No.  1  was  scored  by  comparison  with  each  of  the 
other  29.  At  every  comparison  the  two  drawings 
concerned  were  scored  V  and  '2'  in  the  squares 
opposite  their  numbers  on  the  tally  sheet.  Draw- 
ing No.  1,  having  been  compared  with  the  others, 
was  then  laid  aside  and  No.  2  compared  with  the 
remaining  28.  No.  3  was  then  compared  with 
the  remaining  27,  and  so  on  until  none  remained. 
Thus  the  score-card  registers  individual  compari- 
sons as  well  as  totals  and  affords  a  complete  record 
of  all  that  was  done.  The  score-card  on  page  118 
shows  the  final  rankings  as  given  by  the  ten  judges 
for  this  group. 


THE  EXPERIMENTS 


117 


(ONION  h  t^vO  lO  ^"  «  O  NO  O  vO  O*00   rt"«  fONiOM  O  fOOO  00  NO»0\tJ- 


m  O   ro  O>00  lOiCtH   O^OO   t}-  O  **■  t^^O   N  h  m  ION  O  Nm\0  MONNh 


N  N  m  „  „ 


M  «  M  M  N 


mmhhhNNNh^n 


, r,       „  N      M 


mmCINN^nmNmNmmNmmmmmmmm  W   N   m   N   N   m   m 

mmNOJNmm'-W'-N'-'-'NmmmNMNN  NNNNNCICtN 

mn«NNnNn«n«nnNNnnnw«  mNNNNNN^m 

hhNNNmnmNmNmmNnhnnm  i-mNNNMNNN>- 

MMNNNMN^NMCtMaMOJMMMM  NttMNNNNNNNC* 

mm«NNmN'-««,-'«h**<,«»,",h**  NNN<-N«Mi^W«N« 

i-ii-iC«NNNN««,-,<,«««,«r«««  WWN««N«NN«WNN 

hwNNNn«n«««««N<1  wNNNNNNNNNNNNN 

mmCICINnnmNmNmNN  «-~«f«W»-<CXNNNNNC«NN 

mmmmmmmmmmC«m~  mmmmmmmmmmC|mnc4mm 

mmNN«m«»*«i-«C«m  NnnwNNNNNNNNNNNNn 

MMNNC«ctN'-,«~«  NNNNhnNNNNNNNNNNNN 

NWNNNNNWW  «N«NN«««««N«««WNCiNNN 

MMftMMMMM  MttMMC«MMMMMMMMMM<iNf4ttMM 

•»   m   M   d   M   m   M  N«N«««««i-i«C«NC«««WWN«Ci«N 

H     H     N     »     N     M  Mtl*<«NNNNNN«NNM«NNf|MNf|MM 

MM    C*     M  ^h^NmNmmN^MMMMMMMMMNNNNNMM 

M     M     N  ^^^H^NM-lWl-MMN^^^^M^^^^^WW^NNf1*"^ 

MM  MMMMMMMMMMNMMMMMMMMMMM^dNMM 

M  NC»«««NNMNNNNNC<W«N«fiWN«WN«NWri 

«NNN«CHNN«NN«NNC<NNN««WNNNW«C»«W 

m  c<  rO^MTisO  t^00  OvO  «  M  rO^iCvO  t^oo  O  O  "->  N  rO  ^- >O»0  ^»op  0>  O 


n8  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  DRAWING 

Sample  of  Final  Score  for  a  Set  of  30  Sash  Lifter  Draw- 
ings 

Total  Final 

No.  TA  KO  SM  PS  LH  HM  LN  HN  AC  AA  Points  Rank 

1  3i  35  32  38  36  39  32  33  37  38  351  6 

2  30  35  37  38  35  35  36  36  37  31  35<>  5 

3  53  43  30  37  34  45  51  43  32  36  404  II 

4  49  48  54  50  45  50  49  46  50  53  494  23 

5  48  49  45  55  48  38  46  39  54  48  470  19 

6  35  3i  30  35  36  34  31  35  34  32  343  4 

7  45  49  56  55  49  40  54  55  41  46  490  22 

8  34  3i  34  41  30  29  33  30  33  40  334  3 

9  5i  5i  5o  47  44  45  46  45  5<>  50  479  20 

10  29  35  37  36  33  42  34  36  41  30  353  7 

11  58  58  58  58  58  58  58  58  58  58  580  30 

12  34  33  44  33  33  33  43  34  34  36  361  8 

13  39  40  47  46  43  36  40  37  45  46  419  14 

14  54  55  49  48  53  50  50  54  53  49  515  26 

15  37  38  39  4i  46  43  42  45  39  38  408  12 

16  36  32  34  30  33  30  33  31  3i  35  325  1 

17  32  41  43  39  41  37  33  40  42  40  388  10 

18  41  40  36  36  37  42  35  39  41  37  384  9 

19  41  46  46  45  47  51  50  45  46  42  459  17 

20  45  42  38  32  50  51  49  33  39  54  437  16 

21  42  42  41  42  39  40  40  41  41  41  409  13 

22  40  41  46  36  50  43  45  37  49  41  428  15 

23  47  52  42  54  38  49  51  53  39  43  468  18 

24  51  48  53  5i  54  54  53  49  52  53  5i8  27 

25  56  50  55  54  54  53  5i  54  55  54  536  28 

26  47  29  31  29  29  31  30  46  30  30  332  2 

27  55  56  55  55  54  5i  54  55  52  55  542  29 

28  57  55  42  47  44  54  54  45  43  56  497  24 

29  47  5i  5i  50  50  56  51  48  55  50  509  25 

30  41  48  50  47  51  55  48  54  50  42  486  21 


THE  EXPERIMENTS  119 

(b)  Method  of  Scoring  Descriptions.  The  de- 
scriptions were  graded  by  the  method  of  counting 
points  which  is  ordinarily  used  in  scoring  Aussage 
tests.  In  this  instance  each  point  was  weighted 
by  the  judge  according  to  its  clearness  of  mean- 
ing on  a  basis  of  "10"  for  "perfectly  definite."  A 
score  of  12-98  indicates  that  the  pupil  has  given 
12  points  of  description  with  sufficient  clearness  of 
statement  to  total  98.  The  descriptions  were 
then  ranked  according  to  total  scores.  Where 
ties  occurred  the  method  of  intermediate  ranking 
was  used;  thus,  a  tie  at  22  and  23  was  ranked  22.5. 

Each  judge  read  all  of  the  descriptions  of  a 
group  before  beginning  to  score.  Each  paper  was 
then  given  a  second  preliminary  reading,  after 
which  it  was  read  a  third  time  and  scored  by 
points.  The  final  marks  were  determined  by 
averaging  the  rankings  of  the  ten  judges. 

(c)  Method  of  Scoring  Diagrams.  The  51  dia- 
grams of  the  structure  of  a  feather  were  scored  on 
the  basis  of  a  system  of  weighted  points.  One  of 
the  judges  first  ranked  the  diagrams  serially  ac- 
cording to  the  merit  of  their  general  appearance. 
To  test  the  reliability  of  this  ranking,  a  list  of  all 
the  points  which  could  be  shown  in  a  complete 
diagram  of  the  feather  was  prepared.  A  second 
judge  then  ranked  the  diagrams  according  to  the 
total  number  of  points  exhibited.  The  ranking 
which  had  been  made  upon  the  basis  of  general 


120  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  DRAWING 

appearance  was  now  compared  with  the  ranking 
which  had  been  made  upon  the  basis  of  the  number 
of  structural  points  shown.  The  two  rankings 
were  approximately,  but  not  exactly,  similar. 
The  discrepancies  were  taken  into  account  and  a 
new  system  of  weighted  points  arranged  which 
made  allowance  for  the  difficulty  as  well  as  the 
number  of  the  points  shown  in  the  diagram.  The 
list  follows: 

Standard  for  Measuring  Quality  of  Diagrams 

Characteristics  Shown  Credit 

1.  Barbs  attached  to  one  side  of  shaft I      point 

2.  Barbs  attached  to  both  sides  of  shaft }4     " 

3.  Barbs  shown  parallel }4     " 

4.  Barbs  shown  at  a  slant  to  shaft yi     " 

5.  Barbs  attached  to  all  parts  of  shaft 1 

6.  Barbules  attached  to  one  side  of  barb 1 

7.  Barbules  attached  to  both  sides  of  barb }>i     " 

8.  Barbules  shown  parallel }<£     " 

9.  Barbules  at  proper  slant ^     " 

10.  Two  distinct  kinds  of  barbules 1 

11.  Barbules  intermingled 1 

12.  Barbules  attached  to  all  parts  of  barb 1 

13.  Hooks  attached  to  barbule 1 

14.  Several  hooks  on  one  barbule K     " 

15.  Hooks  on  upper  row  only I 

16.  Hooks  hooking  over  barbules  at  a  slant I 

17.  Hooks  on  entire  margin  of  row  of  barbules. .  1 

Total  possible  score 13K  points 

Points  labeled    insufficiently   are  given    one-half    credit. 
Points  labeled  incorrectly  are  graded  o. 


THE  EXPERIMENTS  121 

Attention  is  called  to  the  fact  that  the  standard 
is  not  used  to  measure  ability  in  representative 
drawing.  In  fact,  the  diagrams  for  the  most 
part  look  very  little  like  the  original  feather.  It 
is,  in  reality,  a  measure  of  analytical  observation, 
for  the  diagram  called  for  is  an  excellent  example 
of  what  is  described  in  the  first  chapter  as  "analyt- 
ical drawing."  The  pupil  must  have  made  the 
preliminary  scientific  analysis  called  for  in  the  test 
directions  before  he  can  construct  a  successful 
diagram.  As  the  particular  test  used  requires  a 
wide  range  of  discrimination  and  considerable 
ingenuity  in  figuring  out  the  structural  plan  of 
the  feather,  it  serves  most  excellently  for  compar- 
ing the  pupil's  ability  in  analytical  drawing  with 
his  ability  in  representative  drawing. 

4.  Method  of  Determining  Correlation.  The  pres- 
ence of  correlation  signifies  that  some  definite 
causal  relation  exists  between  two  series  or  groups 
of  data.  The  mere  fact  that  two  coexisting  con- 
ditions vary  in  the  same  direction  does  not  imply 
true  correlation  unless  one  condition  is  the  cause 
of  the  other  or  both  are  due  to  a  third  cause.  But 
if  it  can  be  shown  that  there  are  common  factors 
possible  to  two  variables,  a  tendency,  however 
small,  for  the  variables  to  fluctuate  constantly  in 
the  same  or  opposite  directions  may  be  taken  as 
proof  of  an  actual  correlation.  Thus  the  determ- 
ination of  a  small  degree  of  correlation  between 


122  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  DRAWING 

any  two  traits  or  achievements  of  a  group  of 
school  children  at  once  assumes  significance, 
because  there  is  no  question  about  the  common 
factors  of  intelligence  and  training.  The  import- 
ant problem  in  this  event  is  the  elimination  of 
all  possibility  of  error  in  the  method  of  finding 
the  degree  of  correlation. 

(i)  Correlation  by  the  Rank  Method.  The  most 
practicable  method  of  determining  correlation 
between  abilities  for  which  there  is  no  standard 
scale  of  measurement  is  by  the  rank  method. 
When  the  same  group  has  been  ranked  in  two 
abilities  in  the  manner  described  above,  the  results 
offer  data  for  direct  comparison.  Column  A, 
Table  V,  shows  how  the  51  high  school  students 
(see  Test  No.  1)  stood  when  ranked  in  order  of 
ability  in  description.  The  pupil  ranked  1  was 
best  in  description;  No.  2  was  second  best;  and 
so  on  down  to  No.  51,  who  was  the  poorest  of  the 
entire  group.  Column  B  shows  the  order  of 
merit  of  the  same  group  in  drawing. 

By  thus  arranging  the  individual  describers  in 
a  column  in  order,  1  to  51,  and  placing  directly 
opposite  the  rank  each  received  in  drawing,  we 
can  get  a  general  idea  of  the  comparative  ranking 
of  the  students  in  the  two  different  abilities.  Save 
in  extreme  cases,  such  casual  comparison  of  the 
two  columns  will  not  be  sufficient  to  ascertain 
satisfactorily  the  degree  of  correlation  which  may 


Table  V 

Comparison  of  Abilities  in  Drawing  and  Description  of  51 
High  School  Pupils 
ABC  ABC 


Rankin 

Rankin 

D  or  Dif- 

Rankin 

Rank  in 

D  or  Dif- 

Name   Descrip-  Drawing 

ference 

Name    Deacrip-  Drawing 

ference 

tion 

in  Rank 

tion 

in  Rank 

(Continued  from  below) 

Brock        1 

36 

35 

Pierce 

27 

15 

12 

Angel        2 

38 

36 

Stone 

28 

47 

19 

Klein         3 

30 

27 

Furth 

29 

21 

8 

Rose          4 

19 

15 

Logan 

30 

22 

8 

Bean          5 

26 

21 

Sully 

31 

20 

n 

Moraw      6 

42 

36 

Hagen 

32 

6 

26 

Henry       7 

24 

17 

Vander 

33 

44 

11 

Glass         8 

II 

3 

Cook 

34 

16 

18 

Mathew    9 

39 

30 

Virden 

35 

25 

10 

Greve      10 

37 

27 

Lee 

36 

8 

28 

Lawler     1 1 

49 

38 

Ames 

37 

5i 

14 

Cooper    12 

3 

9 

Lovel 

38 

9 

29 

Willet  .    13 

35 

22 

Gamble 

39 

46 

7 

Hogan     14 

41 

27 

Jack 

40 

50 

10 

Bolte       15 

5 

10 

Tipton 

41 

18 

23 

Wilson     16 

33 

17 

Cutler 

42 

28 

14 

Keen        17 

12 

5 

Adler 

43 

1 

42 

Heck       18 

43 

25 

Hill 

44 

31 

13 

Foster     19 

27 

8 

Jacob 

45 

45 

0 

Ansorg    20 

17 

3 

Atty 

46 

7 

39 

McKinn  21 

32 

11 

Agar 

47 

23 

24 

Leap        22 

48 

26 

Knapp 

48 

13 

35 

Runs       23 

40 

17 

Weber 

49 

29 

20 

Donald    24 

10 

14 

Ingle 

50 

4 

46 

Donker   25 

34 

9 

Cole 

51 

14 

37 

Joseph     26 

2 

24 



(Continued  above) 


51)1016 


Average  Rank  Difference  or  Av.  D.  equals       19.9 
Chance  D.  equals       17 
r-  — .271  P.E.r  »  .09  R  m  — .172 


124  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  DRAWING 

be  present.  A  number  of  significant  possibilities 
lie  bound  up  in  data  of  this  nature  and  the  true 
one  may  be  discovered  only  by  careful  study. 

(a)  First  Possibility.  The  more  ability  a  per- 
son has  in  drawing,  the  more  he  has  in  descrip- 
tion. Then  in  a  given  test,  barring  errors  in  grad- 
ing, the  student  ranking  I  in  drawing  ranks  I  in 
description;  No.  2  in  drawing  is  2  in  description; 
and  so  on  through  the  series.  Such  a  correspond- 
ence is  signified  by  saying  that  the  correlation 
equals  1  or  100%  positive.  Such  a  correlation 
exists  between  the  volume  and  the  weight  of 
water.  The  merest  glance  at  Table  V  shows  that 
such  a  correlation  does  not  exist  between  abilities 
in  drawing  and  description.  No.  I  in  description 
is  36  in  drawing. 

(b)  Second  Possibility.  The  more  ability  a 
person  has  in  drawing,  the  less  he  has  in  descrip- 
tion. No.  1  in  drawing  would  in  this  case  be  51 
in  description;  No.  2  in  drawing  would  be  50  in 
description;  and  the  others  similarly  related.  This 
type  of  correlation  is  said  to  be  — I  or  — 100% 
negative.  Such  a  correlation  exists  between  the 
volume  and  the  amount  of  pressure  exerted  by  a 
given  weight  of  gas.  It  plainly  does  not  exist  in 
Table  V. 

(c)  Third  Possibility.  The  abilities  in  the  two 
traits  are  in  no  way  related,  the  obtained  results 
occurring  by  mere  chance.     Such  a  result  would 


THE  EXPERIMENTS  125 

be  obtained,  for  instance,  if  the  papers  were  graded 
as  they  happened  to  lie  in  order  in  the  pile  without 
reference  to  their  contents.  Results  indicating 
such  a  relationship  are  expressed  by  saying  that 
the  correlation  is  indifferent  or  equal  to  0.  The 
factor  of  chance  correlation  is  particularly  signifi- 
cant when  dealing  with  small  groups  and  in  any 
case  must  always  be  discounted  before  a  seeming 
correlation  can  be  used  as  a  basis  for  proof  or  infer- 
ence. It  will  be  necessary  to  examine  our  results 
more  closely  to  determine  if  an  indifferent  correla- 
tion is  present. 

(d)  Fourth  Possibility.  There  is  a  tendency 
more  or  less  pronounced  for  those  good  in  draw- 
ing to  be  good  in  description,  or,  on  the  contrary, 
for  those  good  in  drawing  to  be  poor  in  descrip- 
tion. Such  a  tendency,  depending  upon  its 
strength,  manifests  itself  by  a  certain  proportion 
of  one  group  being  good,  or  bad,  as  the  case  may 
be,  in  the  other.  According  to  the  strength  of  the 
tendency  it  approaches  plus  1,  or  -f-100%,  if 
positive,  or  minus  1,  or  — 100%,  if  negative.  A 
complete  analysis  of  the  results  obtained  in  this 
experiment  will  be  necessary  to  detect  partial 
correlation. 

(e)  Fifth  Possibility.  A  certain  selected  part  of 
one  group  is  correlated  with  a  certain  part  of  the 
other  group,  while  the  rest  of  the  group  is  indiffer- 
ently correlated.    Thus  the  best  ten  in  drawing 


126  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  DRAWING 

may  be  very  good  in  description,  with  all  of  the 
others  in  the  group  scattering.  This  type  of 
correlation  cannot  be  expressed  by  a  simple  co- 
efficient, but  must  be  shown  by  tabulations  or 
graphs  of  the  entire  series.  The  results  of  this 
experiment  give  no  evidence  of  this  type  of  cor- 
relation. 

It  is  evident  that  such  terms  as  good,  poor,  fair, 
etc.,  secured  from  a  brief  inspection  of  compara- 
tive data  do  not  indicate  the  amount  of  correla- 
tion with  sufficient  accuracy  for  scientific  pur- 
poses. We  have,  therefore,  resorted  to  more 
accurate  methods  of  determining  correlation. 

(2)  Theory  of  Correlation.  The  fundamental 
factor  in  correlation,  as  shown  by  the  rank  method, 
is  the  relative  position  of  the  same  individual  in 
two  series  of  rankings.  For  instance,  Glass  (see 
Table  V),  who  ranks  11  out  of  51  in  drawing 
ability  and  8  in  description,  differs  in  relative 
position  by  only  3  points,  which  indicates  a  high 
positive  correlation.  Adler,  however,  who  is  first 
in  drawing,  ranks  43  in  description,  differing  in 
position  by  42  points,  which  indicates  a  negative 
correlation. 

The  rank  differences,  3  and  42,  are  designated 
D,  and  serve  as  an  indication  of  the  tendency  of 
correlation.  A  single  D  in  a  series  of  51  D's 
indicates  but  little,  for  it  may  be  due  entirely  to 
chance,  just  as  the  man  who  is  first  in  wealth 


THE  EXPERIMENTS  127 

among  51  may  by  pure  chance  be  either  second  or 
forty- third  in  weight.  If,  however,  we  obtain  the 
average  of  the  51  rank  differences,  we  shall  have  a 
figure  which  measures  the  degree  of  correlation 
present.  This  measure  is  the  Average  Rank  Dif- 
ference, or,  more  simply,  the  Average  D.  In  this 
series  (see  Table  V,  column  C)  the  Average  D  is 
19.9. 

The  Average  D  due  to  pure  chance  is  equal  to 
one-third  of  the  number  of  subjects  in  a  series,  in 
this  case  one- third  of  51,  or  17.  This  average  is 
called  the  Chance  D.  It  means  that  if  a  pupil's 
D  is  less  than  17,  it  is  likely  that  there  is  some  com- 
mon factor  which  favors  positive  correlation;  if 
the  pupil's  D  is  more  than  17,  it  is  probable  that 
there  is  a  common  factor  interfering  with  positive 
correlation  and  producing  a  negative  correlation. 
If  now  we  contrast  the  Average  D  obtained  for 
the  51  pupils,  19.9,  with  the  Chance  D,  17,  we  must 
conclude  that  within  this  group  there  is  a  tend- 
ency for  ability  in  drawing  to  interfere  with  ability 
in  description.  The  degree  of  correlation  is  indi- 
cated by  the  amount  of  difference  between  the 
Chance  D  and  the  Average  D,  in  this  case  17  — 19.9, 
or  — 2.9.  This  sum  is  not  large  enough  to  be  par- 
ticularly significant  with  as  few  as  51  subjects.  As 
a  matter  of  fact,  it  is  reduced  by  the  results  of  the 
other  series.  For  a  rapid  and  accurate  method  of 
ascertaining  the  presence  of  correlation  in  a  series 
of  pairings  approximating  50,  the  author  recom- 


128  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  DRAWING 

mends  the  foregoing  method.  Reduced  to  formu- 
lae, we  have  the  following: 

Average  D  =  ^^;  Chance  D  =  |;  in  which  5  is 
the  symbol  for  summation,  D  is  the  numerical 
difference  between  each  corresponding  pair  of 
ranks,  and  n  is  the  number  of  pairs.  If  the 
Average  D  is  found  to  be  within  the  range  of 
|  =t  2,  there  is  no  evidence  of  significant  correla- 
tion. 

To  find  the  numerical  value  of  the  correlation, 
the  following  formula  may  be  used: 

n2 
This  quantity  should  be  doubled  if  negative, 
which  will  obviate  Lehman  and  Pederson's  criti- 
cism given  to  Spearman's  "Foot-Rule"  method. 
This  formula  will  give  almost  identically  the  same 
results  as  Spearman's : 

M2 1 

in  which  g  equals  the  numerical  gain  in  rank  of 

those  individuals  who  made  a  gain  in  the  second 

series  over  the  first. 

Correlation    may    also    be    computed    by    the 

"Pearson  Method  Adapted  to  Rank  Differences," 

which  gives  more  weight  to  the  large  D's.     The 

formula,  in  which  r  is  the  degree  of  correlation,  is: 

6S(D*) 
r  m  l T\ N 


THE  EXPERIMENTS  129 

Provision  is  made  for  variation  due  to  chance  by 
use  of  the  formula : 

P.E.r=.7o63  — -?=+ 
v  n 

If  r  is  no  greater  than  P.E.,  there  is  no  indication 
whatever  of  correlation.  If  r  is  greater  than  3 
P.E.,  the  chances  are  16  to  1  that  an  actual  cor- 
relation exists. 

The  correlations  obtained  by  both  the  Spear- 
man and  Pearson  methods  are  given  in  the  follow- 
ing results.  The  variations  between  them  are 
without  particular  significance  for  these  experi- 
ments. 

5.  Results  and  Conclusions. 

(a)  Correlation  between  Drawing  and  Descrip- 
tion. The  individual  positions  of  the  51  high 
school  pupils,  and  the  group  correlation  between 
abilities  in  drawing  and  description  are  exhibited 
in  Table  V.  Tables  VI  and  VII  show  similar 
data  for  the  group  of  48  graduate  students.     Table 

VI  shows  the  description  in  serial  arrangement 
with  the  corresponding  ranks  in  drawing.     Table 

VII  compares  the  descriptions  to  the  drawings  in 
serial  order.  Tables  VIII  and  IX  exhibit  the  cor- 
relations of  the  three  remaining  groups  of  students. 


Table  VI 


Comparison  of  Abilities  in  Drawing  and  Description 
48  Adult  Students 

ABC  ABC 


Rankin   Rankin    DorDif- 

Name    Descrip-  Drawing    ference 

tion  in  Rank 


Rank  in   Rank  in   D  or  Dif- 
Name    Descrip-  Drawing    ference 
tion  in  Rank 


Cragun 
Russ 
Hughes 
Hosmer 
White 
Carr 
Geilen 
George 
Ganard 
Wagner  10 
Hubb  11 
M'Cann  12 
Dohert  13 
Brown  14 
Heig  15 
Boden  16 
Duffy 
Hope 
Buch 
Moss 
Kerst 
Rhodes  22 
Burg  23 
Snod        24 


7 
32 
18 

6 
20 
16 
27 
36 
22 

25 

9 

35 

10 

19 

39 

1 

40 

3 
42 
38 
13 
26 

17 

43 


6 
30 
15 

2 

15 
10 
20 

28 

13 

15 

2 

23 

3 

5 

24 

15 

23 

15 

23 

18 

8 

4 
6 

19 


(Continued  above) 


(Continued 
Cano  25 
M'C'mb  26 
Shield  27 
Butler  28 
Colpit  29 
Ferry  30 
Cato  31 
Weber  32 
Mitch  33 
Coward  34 
Harmon  35 
Smith  36 
Whitem  37 
Allen  38 
Jenn  39 
Kenn  40 
Yarbo  41 
Hutch  42 
Donson  43 
Zeller  44 
Thomas  45 
Vogel  46 
Cowan  47 
Porter     48 


from  below) 

4i 

16 

8 

18 

15 

12 

44 

16 

12 

17 

46 

16 

29 

2 

11 

21 

2 

3i 

23 

11 

5 

30 

14 

22 

28 

9 

33 

5 

24 

15 

48 

8 

45 

4 

31 

11 

4 

39 

47 

3 

30 

15 

37 

9 

34 

13 

21 

27 

48)712 


r  m  .228 


Average  Rank  Difference  =  14.9 
Chance  Rank  Difference  =16. 
P.E.r  =  .09  R  =  .079 


Table  VII 

Comparison  of  Abilities  in  Drawing  and  Description 
48  Adult  Students 


Rank  In     Rank  In  D  or  Dlf- 

Name  Drawing     Deacrip-    ference 

tion       In  Rank 


Rank  in   Rank  in  D  or  Dif- 

Name    Deacrip-  Drawing    ference 

tion  in  Rank 


Boden  1 
Mitch  2 
Hope  3 
Donson  4 
Harmon  5 
Hosmer  6 
Cragun  7 
M'C'mb  8 
Hubb  9 
Dohert  10 
Weber  11 
Colpit  12 
Kerst  13 
Smith  14 
Shield  15 
Carr  16 
Burg  17 
Hughes  18 
Brown  19 
White  20 
Porter  21 
Ganard  22 
Cowart   23 


16 

33 
18 

43 

35 

4 

1 

26 

11 

13 

32 

29 

21 

36 

27 

6 


23 
3 

14 
5 

48 

9 
34 
Jenn        24  39 

(Continued  above) 


15 
31 
15 
39 

30 

2 

6 

18 

2 

3 
21 

17 
8 
22 
12 
10 
6 
15 
5 
15 
27 
13 
11 

15 


(Continued  from  below) 

Wagner  25  10  15 

Rhodes    26  22  4 

Geilen     27  7  20 

Whitem  28  37  9 

Cato        29  31  2 

Thomas  30  45  15 

Hutch     31  42  11 

Russ        32  2  30 

Allen       33  38  5 

Cowan    34  47  13 

M'Cann  35  12  23 

George    36  8  28 

Fogel       37  46  9 

Moss       38  20  18 

Heig        39  15  24 

Duffy      40  17  23 

Cano       41  25  16 

Buch       42  19  23 

Snod        43  24  19 

Butler     44  28  16 

Yarbo     45  41  4 

Ferry      46  30  16 

Zeller      47  44  3 

Kenn       48  40  8 

48)712 


r  =»  .200 


Average  Rank  Difference  =  14.9 
Average  Chance  Difference  =16. 
P.E.r  -  .09  R=  079 


Table  Vtlt 

Comparison  of  Abilities  in  Drawing  and  Description 
50  College  Students 


A 

B 

c 

A 

B 

c 

Rank  in 

Rank  in 

D  or  Dif- 

Rank in 

Rank  in 

Dor  Dif- 

Name    Descrip- 

Drawing 

ference 

Name    Descrip- 

Drawing 

ference 

tion 

in  Rank 

tion 

in  Rank 

(Continued  from  below) 

Halm 

I 

43 

42 

Hone 

26 

32 

6 

Clark 

2 

45 

43 

McIU 

27 

27 

0 

Bloys 

3 

36 

33 

Park 

28 

48 

20 

John 

4 

20 

16 

Huston 

29 

8 

21 

Lewis 

5 

12 

7 

Moss 

30 

3i 

1 

Miller 

6 

47 

4i 

Tuny 

31 

14  . 

17 

Cume 

7 

35 

28 

Webon 

32 

33 

1 

Duncam    8 

39 

3i 

Scott 

33 

22 

11 

Mull 

9 

19 

10 

Rankin 

34 

28 

6 

Webb 

10 

49 

39 

Quinn 

35 

13 

22 

Alex 

11 

34 

23 

Bland 

36 

5 

31 

Crook 

12 

1 

11 

Erhart 

37 

23 

14 

Ever 

13 

3 

10 

Fite 

38 

37 

I 

Weir 

14 

6 

8 

Hug 

39 

4 

35 

Powe 

15 

16 

1 

Mill 

40 

50 

10 

Angus 

16 

11 

5 

Walters 

4i 

42 

1 

Cole 

17 

40 

23 

James 

42 

30 

12 

Mann 

18 

2 

16 

Coon 

43 

44 

1 

Oxly 

19 

10 

9 

River 

44 

23 

21 

Evert 

20 

46 

26 

Kalt 

45 

4i 

4 

Fogal 

21 

17 

4 

Habt 

46 

18 

28 

Wills 

22 

24 

2 

Ellin 

47 

7 

40 

Woods 

23 

9 

14 

Peter 

48 

26 

22 

Austin 

24 

36 

12 

Doby 

49 

25 

24 

Cordy 

25 

15 

10 

I     Betts 

50 

29 

21 

(Continued  above) 


.041 


P.E., 


50)834 

Av.  D.        =  16.68 
Chance  D.  =  16.66 
.1  R  =  — .001 


Table  IX 

Comparison  of  Abilities  in  Drawing  and  Description 

Group  A,  30  College  Students; 

Group  B,  31  College  Students. 


Croup  A 

Croup  B 

Rank  In 

Rank  in 

D 

Rank  In 

Rank  in 

D 

Drawing 

Descrip- 
tion 

Drawing 

Descrip- 
tion 

I 

5 

4 

I 

25 

24 

2 

13 

11 

2 

20 

18 

3 

7 

4 

3 

15 

12 

4 

26 

22 

4 

4 

0 

i 

16 

11 

5 

7 

2 

29 

23 

6 

26 

20 

I 

17 

10 

7 

1 

6 

3 

5 

8 

31 

23 

9 
10 

2 
6 

7 
4 

9 
10 

J 

6 
18 

11 

12 

1 

11 

13 

2 

12 

It 

2 

12 

9 

1 

13 

15 

13 

5 

14 

23 

7 

H 

16 

2 

*§ 

20 

5 

15 

14 

1 

16 

24 

8 

16 

29 

13 

17 

21 

4 

\l 

2 

15 

18 

27 

9 

11 

I 

19 

9 

10 

19 

3I 

20 

25 

5 

20 

12 

21 

19 

2 

21 

10 

II 

22 

1 

21 

22 

21 

I 

23 

15 

8 

23 

6 

17 

24 

18 

6 

24 

30 

6 

25 

4 

21 

25 

17 

8 

26 

22 

4 

26 

23 

3 

27 

9 

18 

27 

12 

15 

28 

8 

20 

28 

24 

4 

29 

10 

19 

29 

22 

7 

30 

30 

0 

30 

\l 

11 

31 

13 

~ ~ — 

— 

r-  .074 


30)286 

31)296 

Av.  D.  -    9.53 
Chance  D.  =*  10.00 

Av.  D.  =  9.55 
Chance  D.  »  10.33 

R  =  .047 
P.E.r  =  .12 

r  =»  .151  R  =  .076 
P.E.r  -  .12 

134 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  DRAWING 


The  names  of  the  subjects  are  omitted  in  Table 
IX.  The  figures  indicate  the  rank  of  the  indi- 
viduals in  the  series  stated  at  the  head  of  the 
column. 

The  amount  of  correlation  discovered  between 
drawing  and  description  in  the  five  groups  of  sub- 
jects who  were  tested  in  Experiment  I  is  shown  in 
Summary  form  in  Table  X.  The  A  v.  D.,  the 
Chance  D.,  the  degree  of  correlation  by  the  Pear- 
son method  (r),  its  Probable  Error  (P.  E.r),  and 
the  degree  of  correlation  by  the  Spearman  method 
(R),  is  given  for  each  group,  together  with  the 
averages  of  the  five  groups. 

Table  X 
Correlation  between  Drawing  and  Description 


Number 

Average 

Chance 

r 

P.E.r 

R 

Subjects 

Rank/P 

RankD 

(I) 

51 

19.90 

17.OO 

— .271 

.09 

—.172 

(2) 

48 

14.90 

16.OO 

.200 

.09 

.079 

(3) 

50 

16.68 

16.66 

— .041 

.10 

— .OOI 

(4) 

30 

9-53 

IO.OO 

.074 

.12 

.047 

(5) 

3i 

955 

10-33 

.151 

.12 

.076 

All 

210 

70.56 

70.OO 

.023 

.048 

.006 

Conclusion.  The  combined  results  of  the  tests 
taken  by  the  210  subjects  show  that  there  is  no 
correlation  between  ability  in  representative  draw- 


THE  EXPERIMENTS  135 

ing  and  ability  in  description.  This  is  evidenced 
by  the  average  of  the  coefficients  of  correlation 
determined  by  the  Pearson  method  (.023),  that 
determined  by  the  Spearman  method  (.006),  and 
by  the  equivalence  of  the  Chance  D's  and  the 
Average  D's.  A  pupil  who  is  good  in  description 
is  not  necessarily  good  in  drawing.  He  may  be 
either  good,  medium,  or  poor,  as  chance  wills  it. 
Because  a  pupil  can  not  draw  well  is  not  a  sign 
that  he  cannot  describe  an  object  well.  There  is 
nothing  in  common  between  the  two  processes 
which  justifies  using  them  for  the  same  purpose 
in  laboratory  teaching. 

(b)  Correlation  between  Diagramming-D  rawing 
and  Diagramming-D  escription.  The  correlation 
between  abilities  in  diagramming  and  drawing  and 
between  diagramming  and  description  was  esti- 
mated for  the  group  of  51  high  school  students  in 
exactly  the  same  manner  as  has  been  described 
for  the  drawing-description  correlation.  The  fol- 
lowing degrees  of  correlation  were  established : 

Diagramming-Drawing r  ■■ — .052 

Diagramming-Description r  -     .231 

Ability  in  diagramming  (which  is  a  type  of 
analytical  drawing)  is  not,  therefore,  correlated 
with  ability  in  representative  drawing.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  processes  of  diagramming  and 
description  exhibit  a  positive  correlation    (.231) 


136  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OP  DRAWING 

which,  although  small,  is  significant  of  the  pres- 
ence of  a  common  factor  between  the  two.  It  is 
evident  from  the  results  of  Experiment  I  that  the 
process  of  representative  drawing  is  similar  neither 
to  description  nor  to  diagramming.  The  pro- 
cesses of  diagramming  and  description,  on  the 
contrary,  show  an  intimacy  of  relationship  which 
is  indicative  of  an  inherent  similarity  between  the 
two.  This  contrast  will  receive  further  emphasis 
by  the  results  of  the  experiments  to  follow. 

Experiment  II.    Drawing  and  School  Grades. 

i.  Problem.  To  evaluate  the  correlation  be- 
tween achievement  in  "school"  Drawing  and 
achievement  in  other  school  subjects. 

2.  Materials.  The  materials  included  the  final 
grades  received  by  141  normal  school  students  for 
one  year's  work  in  various  school  subjects  includ- 
ing Drawing.  All  students  were  required  to  take 
Drawing  two  times  per  week  throughout  the  year. 
The  total  number  of  grades,  exclusive  of  Drawing, 
includes  810  individual  marks  in  28  school  subjects 
taught  by  15  different  teachers. 

3.  Method  of  Procedure.  It  was  necessary  to 
adjust  the  method  of  correlation  to  the  system  of 
grading  in  use  at  the  normal  school  from  which 
the  statistics  were  secured.  The  different  grades 
assigned  under  this  sytem  are  5,  4,  3,  2,  1,  and  o. 
The  grades  run  by  theoretically  equal  steps  from 


THE  EXPERIMENTS  137 

5  for  the  best  grade  of  work  down  to  o  for  the 
poorest.  It  was  necessary  to  shift  the  marks  of 
four  of  the  fifteen  teachers  one  point  in  order  to 
make  the  correlations  upon  the  basis  of  actually 
parallel  rankings. 

Table  XI  exhibits  the  method  of  tabulation 
and  correlation  which  was  followed  for  all  school 
subjects.  The  21  members  of  the  class  in  Latin 
are  ranked  as  they  stood  in  the  six  grades  which 
are  possible  in  Drawing.  The  rank  in  Latin  is 
placed  directly  opposite  the  rank  in  Drawing. 
The  difference  between  the  two  gives  the  Rank 
Difference  (d).  Following  this  in  the  last  vertical 
column  is  the  product  of  the  Rank  Difference 
squared  (d*)t  which  is  required  in  the  computa- 
tion of  the  correlation  by  the  (adapted)  Pearson 
formula, 

_      65W 

It  is  necessary  to  remember  that  the  number  of 
cases  differs  from  the  number  of  ranks.  The 
number  of  cases  (N)  varies  with  the  class  (in  this 
case,  21);  the  number  of  ranks  (n)  is  always  6. 

4.  Results.  A  summary  of  the  results  obtained 
from  the  entire  810  pairings  is  exhibited  in  Table 
XII.  The  several  classes  are  grouped  under  the 
titles  of  Manual  Training,  Mathematics,  Foreign 
Languages,  Household  Arts,  English,  Music,  Edu- 


138  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OP  DRAWING 

Table  XI 

Correlation   between   Achievement  in   Drawing   and   Achieve- 
ment in  Latin  as  Shown  by  School  Grades 


Rank  In 

Name 

Drawing 

Latin           d 

(<*)3 

Haulot 

I 

3            a 

4 

Mullen 

2 

2                 0 

0 

Thiel 

3 

I                 2 

4 

Wier 

3 

2                 I 

i 

Tomkins 

3 

2                 I 

i 

McComb 

3 

2                 I 

i 

Austin 

3 

3           o 

0 

Behn 

3 

6            3 

9 

Corbin 

4 

I            3 

9 

Lassator 

4 

i            3 

9 

Fogal 

4 

2                 2 

4 

Pitts 

4 

2                 2 

4 

White 

4 

3            I 

I 

Powell 

4 

4            o 

0 

Hodnett 

4 

4            o 

o 

Osley 

4 

4            o 

0 

Kittle 

4 

6                2 

4 

Weather 

5 

6            i 

i 

Blount 

5 

6            I 

i 

Bloys 

6 

6            o 

0 

Johnson 

6 

6            o 

o 

N=  21 

S(d)  -  25 

53  -  S(d') 

f    —      T 

6  S  (d2) 

6x53 

=3      T = 

i     c£ft 

Ntf—i)  21x35 


THE  EXPERIMENTS 


139 


Table  XII 

Correlation    Between    Achievement    in    Drawing    and    Other 
School  Subjects  as  Shown  by  School  Grades 


Rank  Difference 

Number 

Subject 

Students 

0 

X 

a 

3 

4 

Sid) 

R 

r 

Man.  Tr. 

18 

4 

4 

5 

4 

, 

30 

.16 

.28 

Mathematics 

98 

19 

45 

18 

13 

3 

132 

33 

•49 

Fgn.  Lang. 

39 

n 

15 

7 

6 

0 

49 

•37 

•57 

Home  Econ. 

no 

21 

58 

26 

4 

1 

126 

43 

.66 

English 

144 

36 

67 

3i 

10 

0 

159 

•47 

.68 

Music 

134 

38 

58 

32 

4 

2 

142 

47 

.68 

Education 

116 

3i 

55 

22 

8 

0 

123 

57 

•73 

History 

35 

15 

10 

7 

2 

0 

30 

.60 

.80 

Science 

116 

41 

60 

12 

3 

0 

93 

.60 

.80 

All 


810   216  372  160  54  7  884  .45  .66 


cation,  History,  and  Science.  The  degrees  of 
correlations  between  the  various  school  subjects 
and  Drawing  are  shown  in  the  last  two  columns 
by  the  Spearman  and  Pearson  methods,  respect- 
ively. 

5.  Special  Observations.  Any  legitimate  inter- 
pretation of  the  foregoing  array  of  statistics  must 
take  into  account  the  complexity  of  factors  which 
enter  into  the  assignment  of  school  grades.  Spec- 
ial inquiry  shows  that  the  grades  in  Drawing  were 


140  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  DRAWING 

computed  from  a  number  of  separate  factors. 
These  include  (a)  ability  in  representative  draw- 
ing, (b)  ability  in  designing,  (c)  ability  in  artistic 
discrimination,  (d)  ability  with  color,  washes, 
shading,  etc.,  (e)  attendance,  (f)  discipline,  and 
(g)  vocational  interest. 

Without  taking  into  account  the  possibility  of 
similar  heterogeneity  in  the  grading  of  other 
classes,  it  is  evident  that  the  gross  correlations 
found  for  achievement  in  school  Drawing  do  not 
necessarily  apply  to  its  individual  factors.  As  a 
check  upon  the  factor  of  ability  in  representative 
drawing,  the  drawings  of  the  51  high  school 
students,  which  were  secured  in  Part  I  of  Test  No. 
1,  were  compared  directly  to  the  class  standings 
of  the  same  students.  Two  correlations  were 
computed  by  the  methods  previously  described; 
one  with  grades  in  Science,  and  one  with  the  aver- 
age of  the  class  standings  in  Science,  English, 
Latin,  and  Mathematics.  In  neither  case  was 
correlation  between  representative  drawing  and  achieve- 
ment in  school  subjects  shown. 

6.  Conclusion.  Achievement  in  Drawing  is 
highly  correlated  with  achievement  in  other 
school  subjects,  averaging  nearly  70  per  cent, 
positive.  This  is,  no  doubt,  due  to  the  fact  that 
the  standard  of  drawing  instruction  calls  for  a 
variety  of  mental  and  motor  processes  which  are 
the  same  as,  or  similar  to,  those  found  in  other 


THE  EXPERIMENTS  141 

school  subjects.  Ability  in  representative  draw- 
ing is  not  correlated  with  achievement  in  school 
subjects  when  it  is  isolated  from  the  other  factors 
of  school  Drawing.1 

Experiment  III.    Retention  and  the  Devices 
Used  to  Secure  It. 

1.  Problem.  To  determine  the  correlation  be- 
tween retention  and  representative  drawing,  de- 
scription, and  analytical  drawing. 

Two  special  tests  were  used  for  the  solution  of 
this  problem.  Each  consisted  of  an  unannounced 
examination  given  to  test  the  student's  memory 
of  the  characteristics  of  an  object  which  had 
been  drawn,  described,  or  diagrammed  previously. 

2.  Method  of  Procedure.  Test  No.  1.  Sub- 
jects. 51  students  in  a  first-year  high  school  class 
in  General  Science.     (See  Experiment  I.) 

Twenty-four  hours  after  the  analytical  study  of 
the  feather  previously  described,  the  pupils  were 
given  the  following  examination: 

1.  Make  a  simple  diagram  of  a  feather, 
showing  and  labeling  the  parts  visible  to  the 
naked  eye. 

2.  (a)  What  difference  is  there  in  the  two 
sides  of  a  feather?  (b)  What  difference  is  there 
between  the  upper  and  lower  surfaces? 


1  See  also  Albien's  experiment,  p.  36. 


142  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  DRAWING 

3.  Explain  in  detail  how  the  various  parts  of 
a  feather  are  held  together. 

4.  Distinguish  two  kinds  of  barbules  as  to 
their  shape  and  position. 

3.  Method  of  Scoring.  The  examination  papers 
were  carefully  scored  on  a  basis  of  points  similar 
to  that  described  for  the  scoring  of  descriptions 
and  diagrammatic  drawings.  (See  Experiment 
I.)  The  pupils  were  then  ranked  according  to 
the  degree  of  merit  of  their  answers  to  the  ques- 
tions of  the  test.  As  the  questions  involve  the 
recall  of  the  essential  characteristics  of  the  feather, 
the  results  exhibit  the  comparative  amount  of 
retention  possessed  by  each  student.  By  com- 
paring the  position  of  an  individual  pupil  in  reten- 
tion with  his  position  in  representative  drawing, 
description,  or  analytical  drawing,  it  is  possible 
to  determine  the  degree  of  correlation  present 
between  retention  and  each  of  the  devices  used  to 
secure  it. 

4.  Results  of  Test  No.  1.  Table  XIII  shows  in 
detail  the  correlation  which  exists  between  these 
several  devices  and  retention.  Considered  as  a 
measure  of  the  group  as  a  whole,  the  individual 
tabulations  in  Table  XIII  may  be  reduced  to  the 
following  general  correlations: 

Representative  Drawing  and  Retention . .  r  =  — .022 

Description  and  Retention r  =      .234 

Analytical  Drawing  and  Retention r  =*      ,433 


THE  EXPERIMENTS 


143 


Table  XIII 

Correlation   between   Retention   and   Representative   Drawings 
Description,  and  Analytical  Drawing 


Rank 

Rank 

Rank 

Rank 

Rank 

Rank 

Rank 

Rank 

In 

In 

In 

in 

In 

in 

in 

in 

Memo- 

Draw- 

Des- 

Dia- 

Memo- 

Draw- 

Des- 

Dia- 

ry 

ing 

crip- 
tion 

gram 

ry 

ing 

crip- 
tion 

gram 

I 

38 

2 

I 

(Continued  from  below) 

2 

41 

14 

5 

26 

24 

7 

2 

3 

37 

I 

H 

27 

6 

32 

47 

4 

22 

30 

4i 

28 

16 

34 

18 

5 

7 

46 

4 

29 

20 

31 

8 

6 

17 

20 

10 

30 

4 

50 

22 

7 

48 

22 

43 

3i 

44 

18 

40 

8 

27 

19 

6 

32 

19 

4 

17 

9 

42 

6 

27 

33 

13 

48 

45 

10 

39 

9 

31 

34 

33 

16 

33 

11 

31 

44 

19 

35 

11 

8 

44 

12 

36 

10 

9 

36 

23 

47 

36 

13 

18 

41 

26 

37 

1 

43 

38 

14 

21 

29 

12 

38 

43 

33 

29 

15 

9 

38 

23 

39 

8 

36 

11 

16 

35 

13 

35 

40 

29 

42 

21 

17 

5i 

37 

24 

41 

30 

3 

46 

18 

25 

35 

39 

42 

2 

26 

42 

19 

10 

24 

34 

43 

47 

28 

28 

20 

26 

5 

25 

44 

32 

21 

7 

21 

12 

17 

30 

45 

15 

27 

20 

22 

28 

49 

51 

46 

46 

39 

47 

23 

34 

25 

13 

47 

49 

11 

16 

24 

3 

12 

15 

48 

50 

40 

50 

25 

45 

45 

3 

49 

5 

45 

30 

(Continued  above) 

50 

40 

23 

48 

51 

14 

5i 

49 

144  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  DRAWING 

5.  Conclusion.  There  is  no  correlation  between 
skill  in  representative  drawing  and  subsequent 
retention  of  the  essential  characteristics  of  the 
object  drawn.  There  is  noticeable  correlation 
(.243)  between  ability  in  description  and  reten- 
tion. There  is  marked  correlation  (.433)  between 
ability  in  analytical  drawing  and  subsequent  re- 
tention. These  facts  are  of  the  utmost  importance 
to  laboratory  teaching  and  will  receive  further 
comment  in  the  concluding  chapter. 

6.  Method  of  Procedure.  Test  No.  2.  Subjects. 
61  college  students. 

It  is  frequently  held  that,  whatever  else  may  be 
lacking,  the  process  of  drawing  compels  the  obser- 
vation of  form  and  color.  In  view  of  this  claim, 
a  special  test  was  devised  to  compare  the  amounts 
of  retention  of  this  type  secured  by  the  devices 
of  drawing  and  description. 

The  subjects  of  the  test  were  divided  into  two 
groups,  A  and  B,  of  30  and  31  members,  respect- 
ively. Each  member  of  Group  A  was  given  a 
triangular  metallic  object  (see  Figure  3),  desig- 
nated as  the  "triangle."  Each  member  of  Group 
B  was  given  a  small  metallic  sash-lift  (see  Figure 
4).  They  were  given  similar  drawing  materials 
and  instructed  as  follows: 

Part  I. 

Write  your  name  at  the  top  of  the  page  of 
drawing  paper.     Place  the  object  in  position  as 


THE  EXPERIMENTS  145 

directed  and  draw  it  so  that  it  may  be  identi- 
fied by  your  drawing.  (Time  allowed,  8  min- 
utes.) 

The  members  of  Group  A  exchanged  objects 
with  Group  B,  and  all  were  directed: 

Part  II. 

Write  your  name  at  the  top  of  he  page. 
Place  the  object  in  position  as  directed  and 
describe  it  so  that  it  may  be  identified  by  your 
description.     (Time  allowed,  8  minutes.) 

The  danger  of  mental  superiority  on  the  part 
of  one  group  over  the  other  was  obviated  by  the 
exchange  of  objects  between  the  two  parts  of  the 
experiment,  which  permitted  all  of  the  subjects 
both  to  draw  and  to  describe. 

Five  days  later  the  same  subjects  (one  absent) 
were  given  an  unannounced  examination  to  test 
their  retention  of  the  elements  of  form  and  color 
which  had  characterized  the  two  objects. 

Part  III. 

Directions  after  passing  paper:  "I  am  about 
to  ask  you  a  series  of  questions  concerning  the 
objects  which  you  drew  and  described  five  days 
ago.  I  am  extremely  anxious  that  no  one  shall 
in  any  way  be  aided  by  any  other  student,  so 
I  shall  insist  that  you  keep  your  eyes  away 
from  the  work  of  other  students,  and  that  you 
neither  make  comments  nor  ask  questions 
which  may  be  in  the  least  suggestive  to  other 
members  of  the  class." 


146  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  DRAWING 

The  questions  below  were  then  read  and 
answered  one  at  a  time,  each  student  writing  his 
answer.  When  necessary,  the  exact  meanings  of 
the  directions  were  illustrated  by  diagrams  on  the 
blackboard. 

Set  I.     Sash-lift. 

Write  your  name  at  the  top  of  the  page. 
State  whether  you  drew  or  described  the  sash- 
lift. 

1.  Draw  a  line  indicating  the  greatest  width 
of  the  flat  part  of  the  sash-lift. 

2.  Draw  a  line  indicating  the  least  width  of 
the  sash-lift. 

3.  What  is  the  ratio  of  the  thickness  of  the 
material  at  the  edge  of  the  object,  to  that  of 
the  edge  of  a  half-dollar;  approximately,  (a) 
two  times  as  thick,  (b)  one  and  a  half  times  as 
thick,  (c)  as  thick,  (d)  two-thirds  as  thick,  (e) 
one-half  as  thick,  or  (f)  one-fourth  as  thick. 
(Each  student  was  given  a  half-dollar  for  com- 
parison at  this  point.) 

4.  Were  the  holes  in  the  flat  part,  (a)  nearer 
to  the  edges  of  the  sides,  (b)  the  base,  or  (c) 
were  they  the  same  distance  from  each? 

5.  (a)  Draw  a  circle  indicating  the  size  of 
the  upper  opening  of  one  of  the  holes;  (b)  also 
a  circle  indicating  the  size  of  the  lower  opening. 
(The  outside  of  the  pencil  mark  is  to  be  taken 
in  these  questions.)  (c)  Draw  a  line  indicating 
the  distance  on  the  upper  surface  of  the  sash- 
lift  between  the  two  holes  (measuring  from 
inner  edges). 


THE  EXPERIMENTS  147 

6.  Was  the  upper  surface  (a)  polished  approxi- 
mately smooth,  or  (b)  were  there  numerous 
slight  indentations  or  abrasions  upon  it? 

7.  Was  the  exact  contour  of  the  upper  part 
of  the  finger  piece  from  the  front  (a)  regularly 
rounding,  or  (b)  somewhat  flattened? 

8.  State  the  color  of  the  following  areas  of 
the  sash-lift.  (A  diagram  was  drawn  on  the 
board  and  lettered,  which  divided  the  front 
and  back  surfaces  of  the  sash-lift  in  six  parts 
each.  Two  of  these  parts  in  the  original  were 
copper-colored,  the  remainder  nearly  black.) 

Set  II.  Triangle. 

Write  your  name  at  the  top  of  the  page. 
State  whether  you  drew  or  described  the  tri- 
angular object. 

1.  Draw  a  line  indicating  the  exact  length  of 
one  side  of  the  object  from  tip  to  tip. 

a.  Draw  a  line  indicating  the  exact  length  of 
one  of  the  outer  sides  of  one  of  the  inner  tri- 
angles. 

3.  What  is  the  ratio  of  the  thickness  of  the 
material  at  the  edge  of  the  object,  to  that  of 
the  edge  of  a  ten-cent  piece;  approximately, 
(a)  two  times  as  thick,  (b)  one  and  a  half  times 
as  thick,  (c)  as  thick,  (d)  two-thirds  as  thick, 
(e)  one-half  as  thick,  (f)  one-fourth  as  thick. 
(Each  student  was  given  a  ten-cent  piece  for 
comparison.) 

4.  Were  the  three  sides  of  the  inner  triangles 
(a)  equal  in  length;  (b)  equally  curving;  (c) 
parallel,  or  askew,  with  the  near  sides  of  the 
outer  triangle? 


148  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  DRAWING 

5.  (a)  Draw  a  circle,  the  outer  edge  of  which 
indicates  the  exact  size  of  the  hole  in  the  center 
of  the  triangle,  (b)  Draw  a  line  indicating  the 
exact  distance  from  the  edge  of  the  hole  in  the 
center  to  the  nearest  point  of  one  of  the  sides 
of  the  triangle. 

6.  Was  the  surface  of  the  object  (a)  polished 
approximately  smooth,  or  (b)  were  there  slight 
indentations  or  abrasions  upon  it? 

7.  Were  the  outer  points  of  the  triangle  (a) 
regularly  rounded,  or  (b)  somewhat  flattened? 

8.  (a)  Were  the  lines  which  delineated  the 
various  triangular  figures  on  the  concave  side  of 
the  object  grooves  or  ridges?  (b)  On  the  con- 
vex side? 

7.  Results  of  Test  No.  2.  The  results  obtained 
from  the  foregoing  test  were  concrete  in  character 
and  readily  submitted  to  objective  measurement, 
which  was  carried  out  with  accuracy  and  detail. 
The  average  error  or  percentage  correct  of  each 
detail  of  the  test  was  computed  for  both  drawers 
and  describers.  The  tabulated  results  are  exhib- 
ited in  Tables  XIV,  XV,  and  XVI. 

Drawing  proves  to  be  no  better  than  descrip- 
tion as  a  device  for  securing  retention  of  surface 
dimensions.  It  was  6%  less  efficient  than  descrip- 
tion with  fine  dimensions,  and  markedly  inferior 
with  the  dimension  of  thickness.  In  the  total 
recall  of  all  dimensions,  based  upon  330  judg- 
ments, description  surpassed  drawing  by  over 
6%. 


THE  EXPERIMENTS  149 

Tablh  XIV 

Memory  for  Surf 0x4  Dimensions 

Grms  Dimmsims  Am*  Error  M «te  by 


Length  of  nth-lift M-7%  »7<>% 

Width  of  saab-lift 18.7%  157% 

Length  tide  triangle n.6%  9.5% 

Side  inner  triangle 26.7%  37.7% 


Average  total 17.9%  17.7% 


Between  holes  .  71.0% 

Triangle  hole 38. 0% 

Center  to  edge 46. 0% 

Upper  hole 23.0% 

Under  bote  ,  3*  4% 

Average  tout  .  42.1%  36.6% 


Triangle 41  9%  41. 4% 

Saab-lift  .  970%  56.0% 


Final  average  error 38.3%  31.8% 

Neither  drawing  nor  description  exhibited 
marked  superiority  in  the  retention  of  the  ele- 
ments of  general  design. 

The  process  of  description  is  markedly  superior 
to  that  of  drawing  as  a  device  for  securing  reten- 
tion of  color.  The  ratio  of  correct  judgment  is 
nearly  2  to  1  in  favor  of  the  pupils  who  made 
descriptions  of  the  objects. 


ISO  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  DRAWING 

Tablb  XV 

Memory  for  General  Design 

Drawers  Describe™ 

Rights  Rights 

Contour  of: 

Sash-lift 22%  35% 

Triangle 73%  7<>% 

Position  of: 

Sash-lift  holes 20%  50% 

Triangle  holes 73%  65% 

Surface  Markings: 

Grooves,  etc 93%  93% 

Abrasions,  Triangle 93%  93% 

Abrasions,  Sash-lift 90%  89% 

Final  average  rights 67%  71% 

Tablb  XVI 

Memory  for  Color 

Drawers  Describe!* 

Rights  Rights 

Number  seen 77. 0%  100. 0% 

Position 3.0%  55-0% 

Areas 388%  71. 3% 

Average  rights 39-6%  75-  4% 

8.  Conclusion.  The  results  of  Experiment  III 
give  positive  evidence  that  representative  draw- 
ing is  not  a  successful  device  for  securing  the 
analytical  observation  necessary  to  successful 
retention.  Even  in  its  own  domain  of  form  and 
dimension  it  is  no  better  than,  and  in  all  probabil- 
ity not  equal  to,  the  process  of  description. 


THE  EXPERIMENTS  151 

Experiment    IV.    Analysis    of    Observation 
During   Representative   Drawing  and 
Description. 

1.  Problem.  To  determine  the  direction  of 
attention  during  drawing  and  description. 

2.  Method  of  Procedure.  Subjects.  48  univers- 
ity graduate  students.  (See  Test  No.  2,  p.  91). 
Immediately  after  spending  seven  minutes  each  in 
describing  and  drawing  a  microscope  clip,  the 
subjects  of  this  experiment  were  given  the  follow- 
ing directions: 

Directions.  Introspect  carefully,  and  pro- 
ceed as  follows: 

State  in  writing  as  definitely  as  possible  any 
differences  which  distinguished  your  consider- 
ation of  the  object  (a)  while  drawing  it  from 
that  (b)  while  describing  it,  such  as: 

1.  Aspects  or  characteristics  of  the  object 
which  held  your  attention  during  (a)  and  (b) 
above. 

2.  Kind  of  mental  analysis  of  the  object  or 
mental  procedure  during  (a)  and  (b). 

3.  Difficulties  in  the  technique  of  expression 
during  (a)  and  (b). 

4.  Any  other  specific  difference  which  you 
may  have  experienced. 

The  majority  of  these  subjects  had  had  con- 
siderable training  in  psychology  and  were  able  to 
make  a  satisfactory  psychological  analysis  of  their 
previous  attempts  at  observation.  The  follow- 
ing summary  presents  the  results  obtained  from 


152 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  DRAWING 


the  foregoing  introspections.     It  has  been  veri- 
fied frequently  since  the  original  experiment. 

3.  Results. 

Analysis  of  Description  and  Drawing 
Scope  of  Attention 


Description 


of 


1 .  Many     categories 
characteristics,  such  as: 

(a)  spatial, 

(b)  visual, 

(c)  nomenclature, 

(d)  classification, 

(e)  material, 

(f)  use, 

(g)  construction, 
(h)  kinaesthetic, 
(1)  aesthetic,  etc. 

2.  Absolute  circles,  angles, 
dimensions,  etc. 

3.  All  parts  significant. 

4.  Object  dynamic. 


Drawing 

1.  Characteristics    limited 
to  three  categories: 

(a)  spatial;  — proportions, 

(b)  visual;  — appearance, 

(c)  aesthetic;  — beauty. 


2.  Circles,    etc.,    modified 
by  distance  and  perspective. 

3.  Surface  view  significant. 

4.  Object  static. 


THE  EXPERIMENTS 


153 


Type  of  Mental  Analysis 


Description 

1.  Dealing  with  concepts. 

2.  Rational  analysis  and 
synthesis. 

3.  Constant  comparison 
with  previous  knowledge; 
"association." 

4.  A  sequence  of  ideas  and 
definitions  logically  devel- 
oped into  a  whole. 

5.  Many  categories  of 
thought.     Desire  to  dissect. 


6.  Mental    activity    more 
intense. 

7.  Various  types  of  imag- 
ery used. 


Drawing 

1.  Dealing  with  percepts. 

2.  Imitative  reproduc- 
tion. 

3.  Constant  comparison 
with  appearance  of  resulting 
drawing;  "isolation." 

4.  Any  part  may  be  drawn 
into  the  whole  at  any  time. 

5.  Two  groups  present  in 
class: 

(a)  limited      categories — 

geometrical, 
(b)  trial  by  error  methods. 

6.  Mental  activity  relieved 
by  motor. 

7.  Visual  imagery  used. 


Difficulties 


Description 

1.  Lack  of  proper  words 
to  express  meanings  realized. 

2.  Not  knowing  how  to 
be  definite. 

3.  Failure  to  think  of  at- 
tributes. 

4.  Incompleteness. 

5.  Difficulties  with  organi- 
zation of  elements  into  a 
logical  whole. 


Drawing 

1.  Lack  of  control  of  hand 
in  attempting  lines. 

2.  Not  knowing  how  to 
produce  three-dimension  ef- 
fects. 

3.  Failure  to  select  ele- 
ments of  form. 

4.  Incorrectness. 

5.  Difficulties  of  organiz- 
ing details  into  a  unified 
whole. 


154  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  DRAWING 

Experiment   V.    The   Effect   of   Analytical 
Observation  upon  Drawing. 

i.  Problem.  To  determine  the  effect  of  analyt- 
ical observation  upon  ability  in  representative 
drawing. 

2.  Method  of  Procedure.  Subjects.  16  gradu- 
ate students.  A  stuffed  bird,  the  black-crowned 
night  heron,  was  placed  before  a  group  of  students 
for  study.  The  students  had  never  seen  this 
species  of  bird  before  and  none  of  them  was 
acquainted  with  the  methods  of  bird  study. 
They  were  first  acquainted  with  enough  anatom- 
ical terms  to  enable  them  to  follow  the  directions. 
The  class  was  then  divided  equally  into  two  groups. 
A  and  B.  The  members  of  both  groups  were 
given  the  following  directions: 

Directions.  Answer  the  following  questions 
on  the  paper  supplied: 

1.  What  is  the  shape  of  the  bird's  bill? 

2.  What  is  the  condition  of  the  crown?  The 
forehead? 

3.  What  is  the  position  of  the  wings  at  rest 
with  reference  to  the  body  and  tail? 

4.  The  knee  is  concealed  by  the  plumage. 
The  first  visible  joint  is  the  heel.  The  bone 
connecting  the  heel  and  the  foot  is  the  meta- 
tarsus.    Which  way  does  the  heel  bend? 

Each  group  was  then  given  a  special  direction 
for  observation  which  was  not  given  to  the  other 
group.     The  directions  follow: 


THE  EXPERIMENTS  155 

Group  A.  Note  carefully  the  comparative 
lengths  of  the  bill  and  meta-tarsus. 

Group  B.  Note  carefully  the  number  and 
comparative  lengths  of  the  front  and  hind  toes. 

Finally,  both  groups  were  given  the  following 
direction : 

Direction.  Make  a  drawing  of  the  night 
heron.  Draw  the  bird  in  any  convenient  posi- 
tion. 

3.  Results.  The  parts  to  which  attention  had 
previously  been  called  were  more  accurately 
drawn  than  the  parts  which  had  not  received 
mention.  Group  A,  which  had  been  directed  to 
observe  the  comparative  lengths  of  the  bill  and 
metatarsus,  drew  this  feature  with  much  greater 
accuracy  than  Group  B,  which  had  not  received 
this  instruction.  Table  XVII  gives  the  compar- 
ative measurements  of  the  drawings  of  the  two 
groups  for  this  feature.  Other  features  exhibited 
similar  results. 


156  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  DRAWING 

Table  XVII 

Comparative  Length  of  a  Bird's  Bill  and  Meta-tarsus  Drawn 
with  and  without  Previous  Analytical  Study.  The  Bill  and 
Meta-tarsus  are  Actually  of  Equal  Length. 


Group  A     {After  analysis) 


Group  B     (Without  analysis) 


Student 


Length 
of  bill 


Meta- 
tarsus 


Student 


Length 
of  bill 


Meta- 
tarsus 


A.K 25  mm.  24  mm. 

L.M 25  "  28 

F.P 20  "  20 

F.S 9  "  9 

R.C 25  "  20 

E.W 30  M  32 

W.M 24  "  25 

J.S 19  "  17 


A.P 14  mm.    20  mm. 


L.W. 
C.R.. 
H.M. 
J.P... 
O.P.. 
E.B.. 
SJ... 


35 
35 
18 

•  4 
25 
28 

15 


40 

58 

45 

8 

35 

35 
25 


4.  Conclusion.  Analytical  observation  improves 
the  ability  to  make  a  representative  drawing. 
Greater  accuracy  of  dimension  is  exhibited  after 
such  study.  Group  A,  above,  after  having  their 
attention  directed  to  the  comparative  length  of 
the  bird's  bill  and  meta-tarsus,  drew  it  with  ap- 
proximate accuracy.  Group  B,  without  such 
directed  attention,  made  errors  anywhere  from  15 
to  250  per  cent. 


Chapter  VII 
FINAL  CONCLUSIONS 

I.  The  Psychological  Analysis  of  Drawing. 

The  psychological  analysis  of  drawing  shows 
that  the  process  of  graphical  expression  is  subject 
to  the  influence  of  three  interrelated  factors,  (i) 
a  preconceived  purpose,  (2)  ability  to  see,  and  (3) 
ability  to  represent. 

1.  The  Preconceived  Purpose.  The  preconceived 
purpose  of  drawing  varies  with  the  individual 
and  the  occasion.  It  may  be  (a)  to  fix  an  object 
in  consciousness,  (b)  to  catalogue  items  of  informa- 
tion, (c)  to  make  a  visual  representation,  (d)  to 
interpret  an  artistic  sentiment,  or  (e)  to  illustrate 
a  scientific  concept.  One  decides  to  sketch  a 
route  to  the  next  village,  another  to  record  the 
parts  in  an  automobile  wheel,  a  third  to  draw  a 
picture  of  his  house,  a  fourth  to  interpret  the 
tragedy  of  war,  and  a  fifth  to  demonstrate  the 
action  of  a  force-pump.  Then  follow,  each  sub- 
ject to  the  original  intent  of  the  effort,  the  direc- 
tion of  attention,  the  play  of  memory,  the  marshal- 
ling of  ideas,  the  choice  of  interpretation,  and  the 
guidance  of  the  hand.  Whatever  it  may  be,  the 
purpose  of  the  moment  dominates  the  entire  pro- 
cess of  graphical  expression. 

157 


158  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  DRAWING 

2.  The  Ability  to  See.  (See  pp.  97-99.)  The 
ability  to  discriminate  the  particular  character- 
istics of  an  object"which  should  be  shown  in  a  draw- 
ing depends  upon  both  native  talent  andjtrain- 
ing.1  A  certain  inherent  perspicacity  for,  and  a 
predisposed  tendency  toward,  analytical  observa- 
tion are  fundamental  ancT  peculiar  to  each  type 
of  drawing.  One  individual  may  be  given  to  the 
type  of  analysis  which  is  demanded  by  artistic 
drawing,  another  to  the  analysis  required  by 
scientific  drawing,  and  a  third  to  that  necessi- 
tated by  representative  drawing.  Each  procliv- 
ity favors  one  type  of  drawing  and  interferes  more 
or  less  with  the  others. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  ability  to  see  with  dis- 
crimination may  be  greatly  improved  by  train- 
ing. (See  p.  103.)  One  learns  by  experience  to 
discover  more  readily  the  lines  which  exhibit 
artistic  beauty,  is  taught  to  discriminate  charac- 
teristics which  are  scientifically  important,  or 
comes  in  the  course  of  training  to  recognize  ele- 
ments of  form  which  carry  representative  value. 
Successful  training  in  any  one  or  all  of  these  is  not 
impossible  to  any  normal  child. 

3.  Ability  to  Represent.  Given  the  same  pre- 
conceived purpose  and  ability  to  see  discriminat- 
ingly, achievement  in  drawing  depends  upon  a 
number  of  closely  interrelated  factors. 


1  See  footnote,  p.  100.  - 


FINAL  CONCLUSIONS  159 

(a)  Visual  Imagery.  The  clearness  of  visual 
imagery,  particularly  in  memory  drawing,  is  of 
great  importance  to  accurate  representation  and 
is  subject  to  great  individual  variation.  With 
different  individuals  the  drawing  image  may  be 
(1)  clear  and  distinct,  (2)  vague  and  incomplete, 
(3)  distinct,  but  inaccurate,  or  (4)  changeable  and 
evanescent  when  the  act  of  drawing  begins.  (See 
PP.  93,  94,  and  99.) 

(b)  Reflection.  Knowledge  of  the  physical  char- 
acteristics of  an  object  may  serve  to  strengthen 
the  visual  image  or  even  to  substitute  for  it,  as 
when  one  recalls  that  an  object  is  just  twice  as 
long  as  it  is  broad.     (See  pp.  93-95.) 

(c)  Memory  Devices.  The  memory  may  be 
fortified  by  the  acquisition  of  drawing  schemata 
of  common  objects.  The  possession  of  a  typical 
dog  schema,  for  instance,  is  of  great  service  when 
one  attempts  to  make  a  drawing  of  the  village 
bulldog  "Buster."     (See  p.  100.) 

(d)  Hand  Control.  The  control  of  the  hand 
movements  when  making  regular  lines  which  co- 
ordinate with  the  image  or  percept  of  the  object 
fundamental  to  accurate  drawing.  (See  pp.  99-100.) 

(e)  Principles  of  Drawing.  An  acquired  knowl- 
edge of  drawing  is  necessary  for  the  purposes  of 
visual  representation.     (See  p.  100.) 


160  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  DRAWING 

(f)  Synthetic  Capacity.  All  drawing  depends 
upon  a  final  synthesis  of  the  elements  which  have 
been  isolated  during  the  analysis  which  precedes 
the  use  of  the  pencil.  (See  p.  76.)  One  of  the 
earliest  of  the  child's  difficulties  with  drawing  is 
his  incapacity  to  assemble  parts  into  a  synthesized 
whole.  He  is  unable,  for  instance,  to  arrange 
the  human  features  which  he  knows  as  separate 
units  into  a  uniform  face.  Later  on,  synthetic 
incapacity  remains  to  mar  the  symmetry  of  visual 
representation.  Many  drawers  never  see  the 
"whole"  object  well  enough  to  fit  in  the  parts 
symmetrically.  Finally,  it  is  synthetic  incapacity 
that  sets  the  limits  to  the  artistic  interpretation 
of  beauty  and  the  scientific  discovery  of  law. 

II.  Adaptation  of  Laboratory  Teaching. 

The  psychological  analysis  of  the  drawing  act 
shows  that  there  is  great  variation  among  differ- 
ent individuals  in  abilily~±o-draw  and  in  the  man- 
ner in  which  graphic  expression  is  utilized.  Labor- 
atory procedure  must  be  adapted  to  these  varia- 
tions before  the  highest  type  of  instruction  is 
attainable. 

One  of  the  earliest  necessities,  therefore,  in 
science  teaching  is  a  study  of  the  graphic  propensi- 
ties of  individual  students.  This  may  be  done 
by  subjecting  them  to  tests  similar  to  those  de- 
scribed in  Chapters  V  and  VI.  ,  The  teacher  should 


FINAL  CONCLUSIONS  161 

know  the  degree  of  ability  and  the  cause  for  the 
superiority  or  the  deficiency  of  every  student  in 
description  and  in  representative,  memory,  and 
analytical  drawing.  Means  should  then  be  taken 
to  improve  defective  ability  whenever  possible  by 
special  training  and,  whenever  impossible,  to 
adjust  laboratory  practice  to  the  capability  of  the 
student. 

Improvement  in  the  art  of  scientific  expression 
may  be  secured  through  the  co-operation  of 
teachers  of  English  and  Drawing.  The  descrip- 
tions resulting  from  the  foregoing  experimental 
tests  indicate  that  many  of  the  subjects  have  had 
deficient  training  in  accuracy  of  verbal  expres- 
sion. (See  Test  No.  2,  p.  113.)  General  terms 
and  figures  of  speech  often  deceive  both  writer 
and  reader  as  to  the  actual  lack  of  any  genuinely 
specific  statements.  Each  reader  supplies  a  dif- 
ferent set  of  imagery,  which  proves  frequently 
upon  psychological  analysis  to  be  widely  removed 
from  the  reality  of  the  original  material.  The 
pupil's  description  of  a  feather  usually  reads  well 
if  no  check  is  made  upon  what  is  specifically  said, 
because  the  reader  unconsciously  fills  in  the  gaps 
with  his  own  previous  knowledge.  It  is  different 
with  a  strange  object  like  a  microscope-clip. 
For  most  persons  the  expression  "  microscope- 
clip"  fails  to  arouse  any  image  or  tendency  to 
react  toward  it,  and  the  student  feels  at  once  his 


162  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  DRAWING 

need  for  specific  terms  of  description.  One  college 
graduate  was  unable  to  write  a  single  word  of 
description  about  the  microscope-clip,  and  a  num- 
ber of  others  were  practically  helpless.  Without 
question  training  in  scientific  expression  is  a 
legitimate,  and  should  become  a  regular,  part  of 
the  work  in  English. 

Achievement  in  scientific  expression  is  similarly 
closely  related  to  Drawing  instruction.  More- 
over, the  development  of  skill  in  analytical  "see- 
ing" is  essential  to  the  interests  of  artistic  expres- 
sion itself.  (See  pp.  96  ff.)  Drawing  from  mem- 
ory, appreciation  of  the  scientific  principles  of 
drawing,  ability  to  modify  representative  draw- 
ings so  as  to  express  some  aesthetic  ideal  or  to 
interpret  or  emphasize  some  salient  aspect  of  an 
object  or  scene — one  and  all  are  dependent  upon 
analytical  observation.  It  is,  therefore,  not  only 
important  to  the  interests  of  science,  but  desir- 
able from  the  artistic  point  of  view,  that  pupils 
learn  early  to  analyze  with  discrimination  for 
each  type  of  graphical  expression,  whether  it  be 
visual  representation,  artistic  interpretation,  or 
scientific  illustration. 

III.  Analytical  Observation.1 

Laboratory  procedure  makes  use  of  three  devices 
to   stimulate    analytical    observation,    (1)    repre- 

1  See  p.  5  for  definition  of  analytical  observation. 


FINAL  CONCLUSIONS  163 

sentative  drawing,  (2)  description,  and  (3)  analyt- 
ical drawing. 

1.  Representative  Drawing.1  Represents  tive> 
drawing  does  not  insure  a  consideration  of  the 
scientific  aspects,  or  an  analytical  study  of  an 
object.  (See  Experiment  IV,  p.  150.)  The  pre- 
conceived purpose  of  reproducing  a  visual  copy 
narrows  the  scope  of  observation,  and  the  atten- 
tion, at  best,  is  directed  to  items  of  form  ancT) 
color.  There  is  nothing  to  call  up  associations 
which  have  to  do  with  scientific  ends.  The  atten- 
tion is,  in  fact,  kept  away  from  the  associations 
that  have  to  do  with  science  as  such.  Even  in 
the  province  of  form,  sustained  attention  is  not 
necessary.  The  pupil's  drawing  is  always  subject 
to  direct  comparison  with  the  object  at  hand,  so 
that  extended  study  and  reflection  over  its  pro- 
portions are  not  necessary.  It  is  a  waste  of  time 
for  the  interests  of  scientific  thinking  to  require 
pupils  to  spend  extended  periods  of  time  at  repre- 
sentative drawing.  In  fact,  it  is  worse  than  a 
waste  of  time,  for  it  encourages  bad  habits  of 
analytical  study  which  are  opposed  to  interests 
of  scientific  thinking  and  constructive  research. 
It  is  no  wonder  that  so  few  of  our  picture-laden 
notebooks  give  evidence  of  scientific  grasp  or 
initiative.  The  excessive  use  of  representative 
drawing  is  a  serious  pedagogical  formalism  which 

1  See  p.  6. 


164  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  DkAWlNG 

produces  copyists  instead  of  scientists  and  which 
creates  distaste  instead  of  enthusiasm  for  science. 

2.  Description.  The  preconceived  purpose  of 
description  gives  a  much  broader  direction  to  at- 
tention. (See  Experiment  IV,  p.  150.)  The  at- 
tempt to  describe  an  object  directs  attention  to  a 
large  number  of  its  characteristics  and  initiates  an 
effort  toward  an  analysis  in  terms  of  the  subject's 
own  knowledge  and  previous  experience.  The 
student  who  attempts  to  describe  a  feather  thinks 
of  its  color,  its  shape,  its  use;  all  he  has  ever  known 
or  thought  about  it  is  subject  to  the  play  of  his 
reflection.  The  attitude  of  mind  brought  about 
is  ideal,  but  for  purposes  of  scientific  analysis  it 
lacks  specific  direction.  The  pupil  is  frequently 
unable  to  determine  what  characteristics  of  the 

^object  are  of  scientific  importance.  He  not  un- 
likely devotes  the  major  portion  of  his  time  to 
describing  the  intricate  color  pattern  of  the  feather, 
and  may  overlook  entirely  the  structural  elements 
which  adapt  the  feather  to  the  service  of  protec- 
tion or  of  flight.  It  is  necessary,  therefore,  to 
supplement  and  direct  the  pupil's  attempt  at 
description. 

3.  Analytical  Drawing.1  The  preconceived  pur- 
pose of  analytical  drawing  supplies  the  direction 
of  attention  which  is  lacking  in  spontaneous 
description.     The    attention    is    directed    to    the 

1  See  pp.  6-8  for  definition  of  analytical  drawing. 


FINAL  CONCLUSIONS  165 

particular  characteristics  of  the  object  which  are 
of  immediate  scientific  concern.  The  successful 
type,  schematic,  or  diagrammatic  drawing  cannot 
be  made  without  analytical  study.  The  student 
who  attempts  to  make  a  diagrammatic  drawing 
showing  how  the  parts  of  a  wing  feather  are  held 
together  has  before  him  a  definite  problem  in 
analysis  which  necessitates  sustained  mental  ef- 
fort to  the  end  of  the  process  of  representation. 
(See  Experiment  I,  p.  107.) 

IV.  Laboratory  Records. 

1.  Representative  Drawings.  The  results  of  the 
various  special  tests  show  that  representative 
drawings  do  not  afford  a  measure  of  the  pupil's 
progress  or  an  adequate  record  of  the  work  which 
he  has  accomplished. 

2.  Description.  Description  is  a  desirable  record 
of  the  work  of  the  pupil.  It  covers  a  wide  range 
of  observation  and  lacks  only  in  the  matter  of  the 
extra  time  required  for  the  preparation  of  accurate 
and  comprehensive  statements,  and  for  the  teacher 
to  make  critical  inspection. 

3.  Analytical  Drawings.  Analytical  drawings 
are  ideal  records  of  work  accomplished  and  should 
be  used  wherever  adaptable  to  the  laboratory 
exercise.  They  require  but  a  minimum  of  time  for 
execution,  can  be  made  without  exceptional  skill 
of  hand,  and  may  be  readily  inspected. 


166     THE  PS  YCHOLOG  Y  OF  DRA  WING 

V.  Retention. 
f~  I.  Representative  Drawing.  Representative 
drawing  does  not  aid  the  memory.  (See  results  of 
Experiment  III.)  As  far  as  scientific  concepts 
are  concerned,  it  interferes  with  it.  Many  indi- 
viduals who  can  make  excellent  representative 
drawings  are  unable  to  remember  what  the  object 
looks  like.  They  fail  in  the  attempt  to  draw  from 
memory  because  of  faulty  and  inaccurate  observa- 
tion. Memory  tests  show  that  there  is  no  corre- 
lation between  retention  and  ability  in  represent- 
ative drawing.     (See  p.  142.) 

2.  Description.  Description  aids  retention  by 
establishing  numerous  secondary  associations  dur- 
ing the  period  of  observation  and  writing.  (See 
pp.  142  and  152-153.)  Subsequent  recall  is  greatly 
facilitated  by  the  number  and  strength  of  these 
associations. 

3.  Analytical  Drawing.  Analytical  drawing  aids 
retention  in  the  same  manner  as  does  description. 
Ability  in  analytical  drawing  is  positively  corre- 
lated with  retention.  (See  p.  142.)  The  visual 
memory  of  the  analytical  schema  serves  as  an 
additional  support  for  the  recall  of  associated 
ideas. 

4.  Memory  Drawings.  The  attempt  to  draw 
from  memory  tests  the  retention  of  space  and 
form  relationships.  (See  pp.  98  ff.)  By  means 
of  subsequent  comparison  of  the  defective  memory 


FINAL  CONCLUSIONS  167 

drawing  with  the  real  object,  the  attention  is 
directed  to  the  things  which  had  escaped  recall 
while  drawing.  For  instance,  one  attempts  to 
draw  his  watch  from  memory  and  puts  the  second 
dial  near  the  center.  He  then  compares  his  draw- 
ing with  the  watch.  What  happens?  He  immedi- 
ately scrutinizes  the  characteristic  which  his 
earlier  observation  has  failed  to  fix  correctly  in 
memory.  Thus  the  attempt  to  draw  from  mem- 
ory supplies  the  direction  of  attention  to  the 
visual  characteristics  of  an  object  which  is  lacking 
in  representative  drawing. 

VI.  Recommendations. 

1.  It  is  recommended  that  the  directions  of 
laboratory  teaching  shall  be  specifically  adapted 
to  the  scientific  purport  of  the  hour.  The  direc- 
tions given  for  the  conduct  of  Parts  III  and  IV 
of  Test  No.  1,  Experiment  I,  in  the  preceding 
chapter,  are  suggested  as  typical  of  the  proper 
laboratory  procedure.     (See  pp.  in  ff.) 

2.  It  is  recommended  that  science  teachers 
shall  make  an  early  study  of  their  pupils  to  dis- 
cover individual  variations  in  skill  at  graphic 
expression,  and  that  laboratory  instruction  shall 
be  adapted  to  the  needs  and  capabilities  of  the 
individual  members  of  the  classes. 

3.  It  is  recommended  that  special  attention 
shall  be  given  to  training  pupils  in    the  art  of 


168  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  DRAWING 

scientific  expression  by  teachers  of  English  and 
Drawing. 

4.  It  is  recommended  that  the  device  of  repre- 
sentative drawing  shall  be  supplanted  in  labora- 
tory teaching  by  the  use  of  description,  memory 
drawing,  and  analytical  drawing. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

i.  Albien,  Gustav.  "Der  Anteil  der  nachkonstruierenden 
Tatigkeit  des  Auges  und  der  Apperception  an  dem 
Behalten  und  der  Wiedergabe  einfacher  Formen." 
Zeitschrift  f tir  experimentelle  Padagogik.  V.  u.  VI. 
Bd.  1907.  (Thirty-four  plates  in)  Gratisbeilage,  Bd. 
VI. 

An  experimental  study  of  the  drawing  act  of  great 
value.  The  author  also  reviews  the  history  of  the 
methods  of  education  in  drawing  and  gives  a  lengthy 
analytical  discussion  of  the  drawing  act. 
t.  Bailey,  Henry  Turner.  Article  on  "Drawing." 
Monroe's  Cyclopedia  of  Education.  "(Macmillan, 
1912.).    II.  366. 

On  the  educational  values  of  drawing. 

3.  Bailey,  Henry  Turner.    "Report  on  Industrial  Draw- 

ing in  Fifty-eighth  Annual  Report  of  the  Board  of 
Education."       (Massachusetts.     1893-94.)     Boston, 

1895. 

4.  Baldwin,  James  M.    "Mental   Development  in   the 

Child  and  the  Race."     (Macmillan,  New  York,  1895.) 

5.  Balfour,   H.     "The   Evolution  of   Decorative  Art." 

(Macmillan,  1893.) 

6.  Ballard,    P.    B.     "What   Children   Like   to    Draw." 

Journal  of   Experimental  Pedagogy.     19 13.     2:127- 
129. 

7.  Barnes,  Earl.    "A  Study  of  Children's  Drawings." 

Pedagogical  Seminary.     December,  1893,  pp.  451-463. 

One  of   the  earliest  attempts  to   interpret   large 
groups  of  children's  drawings. 

8.  Barnes,  Earl.     "Child  Study  in  Relation  to  Elemen- 

tary Art   Education."     In   "Art   Education   in   the 
Public    Schools    of    the    United    States."     (Haney. 

169 


170  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  DRAWING 

American  Art  Annual.     New  York,  1908.)     pp.  101- 

132. 

The  author  gives  a  comprehensive  review  of  the 
literature  of  children's  drawings  with  special  refer- 
ence to  the  pedagogy  of  drawing. 
9.  Barnes,  Earl.  "Studies  in  Education."  (Stanford 
University  and  Philadelphia.  1897,  1902.)  Vols. 
I  and  II. 

A  series  of  short  articles,  both  statistical  and  inter- 
pretive, on  children's  drawings. 

10.  Bastin,    E.    S.     "Laboratory    Exercises   in    Botany." 

(Saunders,  1895.) 

11.  Bechterew,  W.  V.     "Objektive  Psychologic"     (Teub- 

ner,  Leipsig,  1913.)     p.  392,  ff. 

12.  Bechterew,     W.     V.    "Recherches     Objectives     sur 

l'Evolution  du  Dessin  chez  l'Enfant."     Journal  de 
Psychologie  Normale  et  Pathologique.     V.  5.  191 1. 

A  good  description  of  the  drawings  of  the  patho- 
logically degenerate. 

13.  Bergen,  J.     "Note-book  to  Accompany  Botany  Texts." 

(Ginn,  1904.) 

14.  Bigelow,   M.  A.     "The  Teaching  of  Zoology."     (In 

Lloyd   and   Bigelow,   "The   Teaching   of   Biology." 
Longmans,  1907.) 

15.  Binet,  Alfred.     "Interpretation  des  Dessins."     Revue 

Philosophique.     December,  1890. 

16.  Broerman,  E.     "L'Ecole  dans  la  Nature."     Revue  de 

l'lnstitut  International  d'Art  Public.     VII  et  VIII. 
December,  1909. 

Contains:  (a)  International  Inquiry  on  children's 
drawings;  (b)  Prehistoric  drawings;  (c)  Free  drawings 
of  our  children;  (d)  Reform  of  drawing  instruction 
in  France. 

17.  Brown,  Elmer  E.     "Notes  on  Children's  Drawings." 

(University  of  California.     1897.)     Vol.  II,  No.  1. 

Interprets  four  biographical  studies  of  children's 
drawings. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  171 

18.  Brown,  William.     "The  Essentials  of  Mental  Measure- 

ment."    (Cambridge  University  Press.     191 1.)    Part 
II,  Correlation. 

An  excellent  discussion  of  the  mathematical  theory 
of  correlation. 

19.  Burk,  Frederick.     "The  Genetic  versus  the  Logical 

Order  in   Drawing."     Pedagogical   Seminary.     Sep- 
tember, 1902. 

Includes  a  summary  of  studies  in  children's  draw- 
ings and  discusses  pedagodical  applications. 

20.  Chamberlain,  A.  F.     "The  Child.    A  Study  in  the 

Evolution  of  Man."     (Scribners,  New  York,  1900.) 
Chapter  VI.    The  Arts  of  Childhood. 

An  interesting  treatment  of  children's  drawings 
which  includes  numerous  ethnological  comparisons. 

21.  Claparede     Ed.     (et    Geux.)     "Plan    d'Exp6riences 

Collectives  sur  le  Dessin  des  Enfants."     Archives  de 
Psychologic     Janvier,  1907.     pp.  276-278. 

22.  Clark,  A.  B.     "The  Child's  Attitude  toward  Perspec- 

tive   Problems."     (Stanford    University   Studies   in 
Education,  1897.)     Vol.  I,  pp.  283-294. 

23.  Clarke,  I.  E.     "Art  and  Industry."     (United  States 

Bureau  of  Education.     1885-89.)     Part  I. 

An  excellent  source  of  information  concerning  the 
early  development  of  industrial  drawing  in  the  United 
States. 

24.  Cooke,  Ebenezer.     "Art  Teaching  and  Child  Nature." 

Journal   of   Education,   London.     December,    1885. 
January,  1886. 

An  early  treatment  of  children's  drawings  which 
has  had  considerable  influence  upon  educational 
practice. 

25.  Conn,  H.  W.    "Biology."  1912. 

26.  Curtis.        "Laboratory  Directions  in  General  Zoology. " 

1912. 

27.  Danzel,  T.   W.     "Die  Anfange  der  Schrift."     (Voigt- 

lander,  Leipsig,'i9i2.) 


172  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  DRAWING 

28.  Duck,  J.  "Uber  das  zeichnerische  und  kunstlerische 
Interesse  der  Schiiler."  Zeitschrift  fur  experimen- 
telle  Psychologic     13.     19.  12. 

The    author    gives    particular    emphasis    to    the 
changes  of  interest  which  occur  at  puberty. 
sj   29.  Elderton,  Ethel.     "On  the  Association  of  Drawing 
with  Other  Capacities  in  School  Children."     Biome- 
trika,  1909-10.     pp.  222  ff. 

30.  Farnum,  Royal  B.     "Present  Status  of  Drawing  and 

Art  in  the  Elementary  and  Secondary  Schools  of  the 
United  States."  (Bulletin,  1914,  No.  13.  United 
States  Bureau  of  Education.) 

Contains  a  fund  of  excellent  source  material. 
Includes:  (a)  Historical  development;  (b)  Aims  and 
scope  in  art  teaching;  (c)  Organization,  methods,  and 
outlines;  (d)  Application  and  correlation;  (e)  Pic- 
ture study  and  school  decoration;  (f)  Materials  and 
equipment;  (g)  Art  clubs  and  associations. 

31.  Findley,  Miss  M.  E.     "Design  in  the  Art  Training  of 

Young  Children."     Child  Life,  London,  1906-7. 

32.  Fitz,    H.    T.     "Freehand    Drawing    in    Education." 

Popular  Science  Monthly.     Vol.  36,  pp.  397-400. 

A  statistical  account  of  the  failure  of  the  average 
school  child  to  draw. 

33.  Ganong,  W.  F.     "The  Teaching  Botanist."     (Macmil- 

lan,  1900.) 

34.  Gennep,  A.  Van.     "Dessins  d'Enfant  et  Dessins  Pre- 

historique."  Archives  de  Psychologic  X.  Febru- 
ary, 191 1. 

35.  G6tze,  Karl.     "Das  Kind  als  Kiinstler."     (Hamburg, 

(1898.) 

36.  Grosse,  E.    "Die  Anfange  der  Kunst."    (Leipsig,  1894.) 

(Also,  "The  Beginnings  of  Art."     Appleton,  1897.) 

37.  Grosser,  H.,  und  Stern,  W.     "Das  freie  Zeichnen  und 

Formen  des  Kindes."     (Barth,  Leipsig,  19 13.) 

Contains  a  number  of  separate  treatments  of 
drawing  and  modeling. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  173 

38.  Haddon,  A.  C.     "Evolution  in  Art:  As  Illustrated  by 

the  Life-histories  of  Designs."     (Scribners,  1914.) 

An  excellent  ethnological  treatment  of  the  evolu- 
tion of  drawing  as  a  decorative  art. 

39.  Hall,  E.  H.     "The  Teaching  of  Physics."     (In  Smith 

and  Hall,  "The  Teaching  of  Chemistry  and  Physics," 
Longmans,  1904.) 

40.  Hall,  G.  Stanley.     "Contents  of  Children's  Minds  on 

Entering  School."     Pedagogical  Seminary.     1902. 

41.  Haney,  Jambs  P.     "The  Development  of  Art  Educa- 

tion in  the  Public  Schools."  (In  "Art  Education  in 
the  Public  Schools  of  the  United  States."  Edited  by 
J.  P.  Haney.  American  Art  Annual.  1908.)  pp. 
21-77. 

A  useful  historical  treatment  of  the  development  of 
drawing  in  the  public  schools  of  the  United  States. 

42.  Hardest.     "Laboratory  Guide  for  Histology."     1908. 

43.  Hind,    C.   Lewis.     "The   Education   of   the   Artist." 

(London.     1907.) 

Contains  an  interesting  discussion  of  the  training 
of  the  artist,  given  chiefly  from  the  point  of  view  of 
the  author's  experience. 

44.  Hogan,  Louise.    "A  Study  of  a  Child."    New  York. 

1898. 

45.  Holmes,  W.  H.     "Origin  and  Development  of  Form  and 

Ornament  in  Ceramic  Art."  (Fourth  Annual  Report 
of  the  Bureau  of  Ethnology,  Washington,  1886.) 

An  excellent  and  frequently  quoted  source  of 
materials. 

46.  Howells,  W.  D.     "A  Little  Girl  among  the  Old  Mas- 

ters."    (New  York.     1876.) 

Records  the  artistic  development  of  a  girl  living 
in  the  midst  of  European  art  galleries. 

47.  Ivanof,  E.     "Recherches  experimentales  sur  le  Dessin 

des  Ecoliers  de  la  Suisse  romande.  Correlation  entre 
1' Aptitude  au  Dessin  et  les  Autres  Aptitudes."     Ar- 


174  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  DRAWING 

chives  de  Psychologic  VIII,  No.  30.  Decembre, 
1908.     pp.  97-156. 

An  elaborate  analysis  of  the  drawings  collected 
from  the  inquiry  instigated  by  ClaparSde  and  Geux, 
with  special  reference  to  the  correlation  between 
ability  in  drawing  and  other  school  subjects. 

48.  Jessup,   Walter  A.     "The   Social   Factors  Affecting 

Special  Supervision  in  the  Public  Schools  of  the 
United  States."  (Teachers  College,  Columbia  Uni- 
versity, 191 1.)     Chapter  III,  "Drawing,"  pp.  18-31. 

49.  Johonot,  J.     "Principles  and  Practice  of  Teaching." 

(Appleton,  1878.) 

50.  Judd,  C.  H.,  and  Cowling,  D.  J.     "Studies  in  Percep- 

tual Development."     Psychological  Review.     1897. 

An  experimental  study  of  attempts  to  draw  a 
simple  figure  from  memory. 

51.  Karrenberg,   C.     "Der   Mensch  als   Zeichenobjekt." 

(Quelle  and  Meyer,  Leipsig,  1910.) 

52.  Katz,  David.     "Ein  Beitrag  zur  Kenntnis  der  Kinder- 

zeichnungen."  Zeitschrift  fur  Psychologie  u.  Phys. 
der  Sinnesorgane.     1906.     pp.  241-256. 

A  study  of  the  perceptual  process  of  children  dur- 
ing attempts  to  make  drawings  of  pasteboard  geo- 
metrical figures. 

53.  Katzaroff,  M.  D.     "Qu'est-ce  les  Enfants  Dessinent?" 

Archives  de  Psychologie.     IX.     pp.  125-133. 

54.  Kerschensteiner,    George.     "Die  Entwickelung  der 

zeichnerischen  Begabung."  (Gerber,  Munich,  1905.) 
An  elaborate  and  important  inquiry  involving  some 
300,000  drawings  of  school  children.  One  of  the 
most  influential  works  on  the  practical  applications 
to  teaching.  Contains  a  wealth  of  discursive,  sta- 
tistical, and  illustrative  material. 

55.  Kik,     C.     "Die     iibernormale     Zeichenbegabung     bei 

Kindern."  Zeitschrift  fur  angew.  Psychologie.  II. 
1908.     pp.  92-149. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  175 

Contains  a  detailed  treatment  of  the  artistic  ability 
of  thirteen  exceptionally  gifted  drawers.  Gives 
particular  emphasis  to  the  relation  of  special  merit 
in  drawing  to  intellectual  ability. 

56.  "Kind,  Das,  und  die  Schule."     Katalog  zur  Ausstellung 

Kind  und  Schule  auf  der  Buchgewerbe-Ausstellung, 
Leipsig,  1914.     (DUrr,  Leipsig,  1914.) 

An  important  treatment  of  drawing,  reading, 
modeling,  writing,  etc. 

57.  Koch-Grunbbrg,  Theodor.     "Anfange  der  Kunst  im 

Urwald."     (Berlin,  1906.) 

Contains  an  interesting  comparison  of  the  draw- 
ings of  children  and  primitive  peoples. 

58.  Kohler.     Zeitschrift   fQr  angewannte   Psychologie    u. 

Psychologie  Sammelforsch.     Band  I,  1908. 
See  Stern,  —  Kohler,  —  Verworn. 

59.  Kretzschmar,    J.     "Sammlungen    freier    Kinderzeich- 

nungen."  Zeitschrift  fflr  angewannte  Psychologie. 
1910,  3-     PP-  459-463. 

60.  Lamprecht,    Karl.     "Les    Dessins  d'Enfants  comme 

Source  Historique.  Bulletin  de  l'Academie  Royale 
de  Belgique,  nos  9-10,  pp.  457-469.     1906. 

Gives  the  method  of  a  research  which  has  been 
carried  out  on  a  vast  international  scale. 

61.  Levinstein,  Siegfried.     "Kinderzeichnungen  bis  zum 

14  Lebensjahr.  Mit  Parallelen  aus  der  Urgeschichte, 
Kulturgeschichte  und  V6lkerkunde."  (Voigtlander, 
Leipsig,  1905.)     169  pages,  85  plates,  18  graphs. 

An  important  statistical  research  with  an  added 
extended  bibliography.  Chapter  I,  The  human 
figure;  II,  Animals  and  plants;  III,  Perspective  and 
colors;  IV,  Stories;  V,  Drawing  as  a  language;  VI, 
Parallels  with  historical  and  ethnographical  develop- 
ment; VII,  Drawings  of  Esquimaux;  VIII,  Pedagogi- 
cal conclusions. 

62.  Lindner,  Rudolph.     "Das  Lesenlernen  in  der  Taub- 

stummenschule.  Das  Kind  und  die  Schule."  Kata- 
log zur  Kinder-Abteilung  der  Leipsiger  Buchgewerbe 
Ausstellung.     19 14.    p.  248,  ff. 


176  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  DRAWING 

63.  Lobsien,    M.     "Kinderzeichnung    und    Kunstkanon." 

Zeitschrift  f iir  padag.     Psychologic     1905.     pp.  393- 
404. 

Contains  a  comparison  of  children's  drawings  to 
the  canons  of  classic  art. 

64.  Locke,  Josephine,  C.     "With  What  Should  Drawing 

Begin?"     (Proceedings  of  the  National  Educational 
Association,  1893.)     pp.  491  ff. 

65.  Lukens,  H.  T.     "A  Study  of  Children's  Drawings  in 

the  Early  Years."     Pedagogical  Seminary.     October, 
1896. 

Contains  a  summary  of  the  studies  in  children's 
drawings  up  to  1896. 

66.  Luquet,  M.  G.     "Les  Dessins  d'un  Enfant."     (Alcan, 

Paris,  1913.)     150  plates.     262  pages. 

Contains  a  very  complete  analytical  account  of 
the  drawings  of  a  little  girl  from  the  age  of  three  to 
nine  years.     The  best  biographical  study  to  date. 

67.  Maitland,  Louise.     "What  Children  Draw  to  Please 

Themselves."     Inland  Educator.     September,  1895. 

68.  Maxwell,  W.  H.     "The  New  Course  of  Study."     1904. 

69.  Messmer,  O.     "Zur  Psychologie  des  Lesens  bei  Kindern 

und  Erwachsenen."     Archiv  f.  d.  ges.  Psychologie. 
II. 

70.  Meumann,  Ernst.     "Ein    Programm    zur    psycholo- 

gischen    Untersuchung    des    Zeichnens."   Zeitschrift 
fur  pad.     Psychologie.     1912. 

71.  Meumann,  Ernst.     "Die  Analyse  des  Zeichnens  und 

des  Modellierens."  In  "Vorlesungen  zur  Einfiihrung 
in  die  Experimentelle  Podagogik."  (Englemann, 
Leipsig,  1914.)     00.  693-775. 

Contains  the  most  elaborate  analysis  of  the  psy- 
chology of  drawing  to  date.  Includes:  1,  The  de- 
velopment of  drawing  and  the  gift  of  drawing  in  the 
child;  2,  Analysis  of  the  gift  for  drawing;  3,  The  de- 
velopment of|the  child's  understanding  of  pictures 
and  sculpture, 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  177 

72.  Moore,  K.  C.     "The  Mental  Development  of  a  Child." 

The  Psychological  Review.     October,  1896. 

73.  O'Shea,  M.  V.     "Children's  Expression  through  Draw- 

ing."    (Proceedings    of    the    National    Educational 
Association,  1894.)     pp.  1015-1023. 

74.  Pappenheim,     Karl.     "Bemerkungen     fiber    Kinder- 

zeichnungen."     Zeitschrift    fur    Padagogische    Psy- 
chologic    March,  189 1. 

75.  Partridge,    Sophie.      "Children's    Drawings."     The 

Paidologist,  London,  November,  1904. 
An  elaborate  objective  study  of  children's  drawings. 

76.  Patridge,  Lena.     "Children's  Drawings  of  Men  and 

Women."     (Stanford  University  Studies  in  Educa- 
tion, 1900.)     Vol.  II,  pp.  163-179. 

77.  Passy,  Jacques.    "Notes  sur  les  Dessins  des  Enfants." 

Revue   Philosophique.     December,    1891.     pp.   614- 
621. 

78.  Perez,  Bernard.    "L'Art  et  la  Poesie  chez  l'Enfant." 

Paris,  1888. 

79.  Peter,  Rudolph.    "Beitrage  zur  Analyse  der  zeich- 

nerischen  Begabung."     Zeitschrift  fur  Padagogische 
Psychologic    Jarg.    XV.     February,  19 14. 

80.  Preyer,  Wilhblm.     "The  Mind  of  the  Child."    (Trans- 

lated by  W.  H.  Brown.     New  York,  1899.) 

81.  Probst,    M.     "Les    Dessins    des    Enfants  Kabyles." 

Archives  de  Psychologic    6:131-140.     1906. 

An  interesting  study  of  the  drawings  of  children 
who  had  not  been  subject  to  the  influence  of  a  civilized 
environment. 

82.  .     "Report  of  Schools  of  Erie,  Pennsylvania." 
1877-78. 

83.  Ricci,   Carrado.     "L'Arte  dei   Bambini."     (Bologna, 

1887.) 

An  early  and  much  quoted  objective  study  of 
children's  drawings.  It  is  translated  in  part  in  the 
Pedagogical  Seminary  for  October,  1895. 


178  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  DRAWING 

84.  Rooper,  T.  G.     "Drawing  in  Primary  Schools."     New 

York,  1894. 

85.  Rosen.     "Darstellende  Kunst  im  Kindesalter  der  Volk- 

er."     Zeitschrift    fur    angewannte    Psychologic     I, 
p.  93,  ff. 

86.  Rouma,    G.     "Le   Langage   Graphique   de   l'Enfant." 

(Alcan,  Paris,  1913.) 

The  most  comprehensive  treatment  of  children's 
drawings  from  the  development  viewpoint  to  date. 
Contains  a  preliminary  chapter  on  methods  of  study, 
an  excellent  bibliography,  and  many  graphs,  tables 
figures,  and  plates. 

87.  Ruttmann,    W.    J.     "Die    Ergebnisse   der   bisherigen 

Untersuchungen    zur    Psychologie  des     Zeichnens." 
(Wunderlich,  Leipsig,  191 1.) 

Contains  an  excellent  analytical  summary  of  the 
important  statistical  and  experimental  studies  of  the 
psychology  of  drawing  to  191 1. 

88.  Sargent,  Walter.     "Fine  and  Industrial  Arts  in  Ele- 

mentary Schools."  (Ginn,  1912.) 
*/  89.  Sargent,  Walter.     "Problems    in   the    Experimental 
Pedagogy    of    Drawing."    Journal    of    Educational 
Psychology.  May,  1912. 

90.  Schuyten.  "Het  oorspronkelijk  teekenen  als  bijdrage 

tot    kinderanalyse."     Paedolog.     Jaarb.     II.     1901. 
pp.  1 12-126. 

Attempts  to  measure  the  artistic  development  of 
the  child  on  the  basis  of  the  degree  of  perfection  of 
his  drawings  as  compared  to  classic  standards. 

91.  Shinn,  M.  W.     "Notes  on  the  Development  of  a  Child." 

(University  of  California  Studies,  Berkeley,  1899.) 

92.  Simpson,    B.    R.     "Correlation   of   Mental   Abilities." 

(Columbia  University,  1912.) 

93.  Spearman,  C.     "Footrule  for  Measuring  Correlation." 

British  Journal  of  Psychology.     1906.     pp.  89-109. 

94.  Spencer,  H.     "Education."     (Appleton,  1861.) 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  179 

95.  Stern,  C.  u.  W.     "Die  zeichnerische  Entwickelung  eines 

Knaben."     Zeitschrift  fiir  angewannte  Psychologic 

in.   y2.   1909. 

A  study  in  the  early  developmental  period  of  drawing. 

96.  Stern,  W.     "Spezielle    Beschreibung   der   Ausstellung 

freier  Kinderzeichnungen  aus  Breslau."  Bericht 
(iber  den  Kongres  fur  Kinderforschung  und  Jugend- 
fiirsorge  in  Berlin.    (1-4  October,  1906.)    pp.  411-417. 

97.  Stern, — Kohler, — Verworn.     "Sammlungen      freier 

Kinderzeichnungen."  Zeitschrift  fiir  angewannte 
Psychologic  Sammelf.  Band,  I,  1908,  pp.  179- 
187-472-476.     Band  II,  Heft  1  and  2. 

Includes  a  discussion  of  the  collections  of  children's 
drawings  then  in  existence. 

98.  Stiehler,  Georg.     "Beitrag  zur  Psychologie  und  Meth- 

odik  des  Zeichnenunterrichts.  (Osterwieck,  Leipsig, 
19 13.)     104  pages. 

An  attempt  to  base  drawing  instruction  upon  ex- 
perimental psychology.  Contains  many  excellent 
and  practical  suggestions. 

99.  Stone,  J.  M.     "The  Relation  of  Nature  Study  to  Draw- 

ing in  the  Public  School."  (Proceedings  of  the 
National  Educational  Association,  1900.)     p.  524,  ff. 

100.  Sully,  James.     "Studies  of  Childhood."     (Appleton, 

1908.) 

101.  Tanner,  Anna  E.    "The  Child."     (Rand,  McNally, 

New  York,  1904.)     pp.  373-392. 

102.  Term  an,  L.  M.    "Genius  and  Stupidity."    Pedagogical 

Seminary,  1906. 

103.  Thorndike,  Edward  L.  "The  Measurement  of  Achieve- 

ment in  Drawing."  Teachers  College  Record. 
November,  19 13. 

Contains  a  scale  for  the  measurement  of  ability 
in  representative  drawing  together  with  a  discussion 
of  the  method  of  constructing  the  scale. 


t8o         The  psychology  of  drawing 

104.  .  "University  of  Chicago  Entrance  Requirements." 
1912. 

105.  Verworn,    Max.     "Zur   Psychologie   der    primitiven 

Kunst."     (Fisher,  Jena,  1908.) 

106.  Wagner,  P.  A.     "Das  freie  zeichnen  von  Volksschul- 

kindern."     Zeitschrift  fur  angewannte  Psychologie. 
1913.     8:  1-30. 

Contains  Stern's  statistical  investigation,  Classi- 
fication made  of  the  classes  of  possible  motives,  and 
percentages  of  frequency  are  given  for  representations 
of  movement,  human  figure,  indications  of  humor,  etc. 
Four  stages  of  development  are  recognized. 

107.  Whipple,  G.   M.     "Manual  of  Mental  and  Physical 

Tests."     (Warwick  and  York,  19 10.) 

108.  Wilson,  T.     "Prehistoric  Art."     (Report  of  the  United 

States  Nat.  Mus.,  1896.)     pp.  325-644. 

109.  Wundt,  Wilhelm.    "Volkerpsychologie."    (Engelmann, 

Leipsig,  1900-09.) 
no.  Yule,   G.    U.     "An   Introduction   to   the  Theory   of 
Statistics."     (Griff  en,  19 12.) 


INDEX 


Pagb 

Albien,  G 4L  64,  87,  92,  141 

Analysis  of  drawing 46,  67,  87,  107,  157 

Analytical  drawing 2,  6,  164 

Analytical  observation 5,  98,  162 

Analytical  study 156 

Attention,  direction  of 151 

Average  Rank  Difference 127 

Bailey,  H.  T 52 

Barnes,  E 18,   19 

Bastin,  E.  S 56 

Becterew,  W.  V 77 

Bergen,  J 56 

Bibliographical  survey 15 

Bigelow,  M.  A 57 

Biographical  method 36 

Bird,  study  of 154 

Brown,  E.  E 37 

Burk,  F 73 

Chance  Difference 127 

Claparede,  E 25 

Clark,  A.  B 22 

Clark,  I.  E 51 

Comparative  products  method 33 

Conn,  H.  W 56 

Constructive  drawing 93 

Correlation 9,  65 

method  of  determining 121 

rank  method 122 

181 


182  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  DRAWING 

theory  of 126 

with  drawing 61,  107,  139,  143 

Cultural  values  of  drawing 49 

Description 164 

and  observation 151 

and  retention 142 

as  a  laboratory  device 2 

relation  to  drawing 107,  124,  130,  134 

Developmental  stages 70,  73 

Diagram 113,  120 

Diagramming  and  description 107,  135 

Diagramming  and  representation 107,  135 

Difficulties  of  drawing 97,  153 

Drawing,  aesthetic  values  of 51,  53 

analysis  of 67,  87,  151 

analytical 6,  164 

and  intellectual  development 49 

as  a  language 52,  79,  83 

as  mental  discipline 51 

bibliographical  survey  of 15 

correlations 61 

cultural  values  of 49,  53 

difficulties  of 97,  153 

freehand 54 

industrial  values  of 49 

involuntary 76 

memory  {see  Memory  drawing) 2 

representative  {see  Representative  drawing) 2 

scientific  value  of 53 

spontaneous 8,  67 

stages  of 70,  73,  76 

types  of 92 

university  entrance  requirements 54 


INDEX  183 

Elderton,  E 59 

Experimental  method 39 

Experiments,  special 107,  156 

Farnum,  R.  B 50,  53 

Feather,  study  of 108 

Fixating  seeing 42 

Ganong,  W.  F 56,  57 

General  ability,  and  special 10,  64 

relation  to  drawing 58 

General  intelligence 64 

Gross  products,  method 16 

studies  in 67 

Haddon,  A.  C 34,  8o,  82 

Hall.E.H 57 

Haney,  J.  P 49 

Hans  Guck-in-die-Luft 20,  31,  72 

Hogan,  L 38 

Human  form 69 

Industrial  values  of  drawing 49 

Intellectual  development 49 

Introspection 10,    151 

Ivanof,  E 26,  60 

Jessup,  W 50 

Johnny  Head-In-The-Air 20,  31 

Johonot,  J 56 

Judd,  C.  H 40,  89,  91 

Karrenberg,  C 103 

Katz,  D 40 

Kerschensteiner,  G 28,  36,  64,  74,  77,  82 

Kik,  C 31,  62 


184  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  DRAWING 

Laboratory,  aims 107 

drawing 4,  163,  165 

procedure 3,  162 

method 1 

records 2,  134,  165 

teaching I,  160 

Lamprecht,  K 30 

Language  and  drawing 52,  79,  83,  161 

Levinstein,  S 34,  36,  68,  69,  72,  79 

Lindner,  R 36 

Lobsien,  M 36 

Lukens,  H.  T 38,  79 

Luquet,  M.  G 38,  58,  69,  75,  78,  82 

Maitland,  L 18,  67 

Maxwell,  W.  H 56 

Memory  drawing 8,  43,  46,  99,  101,  159 

Memory,  for  color 150 

for  dimensions 149 

for  general  design 150 

Mental  analysis 10,  153 

Messmer,  0 95 

Methods  of  research 9,  15 

Meumann,  E 41,  45,  66,  74,  80,  97,  100 

Motion,  representation  of 71 

Objective  methods 15 

Observation 54,  96 

analysis  of I51 

analytical 2,  II,  154 

Patridge,  L 22,  168 

Pearson  method 128 

Perceptual  development 91 

Peter,  R 45 


INDEX  185 

Preconceived  purpose 89,  157 

Probst,  M 24,  68 

Psychological  analysis 4,  107,  157 

Rank  method 122 

Realim,  logical  and  visual 76,  78,  82 

Recommendations 167 

Reflection 159 

Representative  drawing 43,  46,  103,  163 

ability  in 158 

analysis 151 

and  retention 142 

as  a  laboratory  device 2 

definition  of 6 

relation  to  description 107 

relation  to  diagramming 107 

Retention,  and  description 141 

and  drawing 142 

devices  for 141 

in  laboratory  procedure 3 

types  of 100 

Ricci,  C 17 

Rouma,  G 16,  18,  26,  36,  59,  64,  66,  69,  70,  78,  83 

Ruttmann,  W.  J 16,  18,  33 

Sargent,  W 52 

Sash-lift,  study  of 144 

Schema 8,  74,  100,  159 

School  grades 136 

Schuyten,  H 23,  36 

Scientific  expression 162 

Scientific  values  of  drawing 55 

Scoring  methods 1 14,  142 

Seeing  ability 158 

Simpson,  B.  R 65 


186  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  DRAWING 

Smith,  W 50 

Spearman  method Ill 

Special  aptitudes I 

Special  products  method \o 

Speech  and  drawing 79 

Spencer,  H 56 

Stages  of  drawing 70,  73,  74,  76,  79 

Stern.W 32,  38 

Stiehler,  G 44,  66,  77 

Subjective  methods 16 

Synthetic  incapacity 76,  82,  160 

Terman,  L.  M 64 

Tests,  analytic 9 

Thorndike,  E.  L 77 

Triangle,  study  of 144 

Types  of  drawing 72,  92 

Types  of  reading 95 

Verworn,  M 75 

Visual  drawing 92 

Visual  imagery 99,  159 

Wagner,  F.  H 32 

Wundt,  W 35 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 
BERKELEY 

Return  to  desk  from  which  borrowed. 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


JUL  1 


4   1951 


W  6    J3?2 


J>  21-100m-9,,47(A5702sl6)476 


^B  30223 


